I think Speed Chess is garbage.

Many titled players use blitz to train. Even Botvinnik, the patron saint of "blitz is trash" organized a secret blitz practice session at his house with another GM.

But yeah, if you're playing them without focus or review, it's pointless.

I think  the smaller tcs with no increment have less "thinking" involved and dont help me much - I rather play 2/12 than play 3/0

"If you win because you can move your mouse faster, you've won a mouse clicking race, not a chess game." 

Brilliant!

0110001101101000 wrote:

Blitz can be useful as long as you have time to consider multiple moves.

I disagree.  I think the only way to play good chess at 1-minute each for the game is if your intuitive chess vision is so well trained that you can instantly see a strong, non-blunder in any position, andmake the move without needing to consider alternatives or to check that you haven't overlooked something.

You cannot develop that sort of vision or intuition by playing 1-minute games. You develop it by studying and by playing slow games.  Then you apply the skill in fast games.

Is bullet garbage?  Sometimes yes, sometimes no.  It depends on why you are playing it, and how you approach it. 

Bullet chess: Chess where you can be 5 pieces down, win by .01 of a second, and brag you "won"

I'm s*%@ at blitz, bullet and the like. Though I'm a competent tactician I tend to think more slowly than these formats allow. My fairly well honed strengths as a strategist are of much more limited use in the faster games. I do very, very much better with longer time controls or correspondence type games, and enjoy them much more. As I get older my speed of thought has perhaps been dulled but my depth of thought has grown more profound and this is very much reflected in my play in these two formats.

The experienced players (such as titled masters) tend to like quick chess because they've already reached a level of play where their understanding of the game has become efficient and streamlined.

They don't really need to sit and ponder lines for long periods of time—they can evaluate a position at a quick glance and usually can find the best (or at least good) moves in a few short seconds.

We play speed games not with the intention of playing our best, but for playing efficiently. And it gives us an adrenaline rush that slow chess doesn't. I don't like blitz chess as much as I like other speed games since my brain needs time to think things through, but I do it occasionally since it's a nice way for me to be constantly engaged with the game.

Pretty sure both of them involve chess pieces, a board, and it ends in win (by resignation, timeout, checkmate or other), lose (by the aforementioned) or draw (stalemate, repetition, agreement...). That's chess. It's not standard chess. But it makes no sense to say that they "are not chess" without being specific. Not sure what game we're playing.

Nothing against bullet, blitz and the like, and I'm glad they exist for those that enjoy them, but for me OTB classical chess with conventional match or tournament style time controls is the best. I have to admit occasionally enjoying the faster games on the site's 'watch' facility (more the 3 minute than the 1 minute version which exceeds even my speed of appreciation). I even found myself tuned in to a Nakamura game the other day. 

Bullet, blitz, and slow chess are all hobbies to pass the time.

For most people, anyway. :D

This pretty accurately sums up my stance. (Really love that penultimate point about applying skills from slow games to fast games.) Speed games are just not for everyone. But for those of us who enjoy the fast-paced thinking, it's a lot of fun. For those who like slower games, that's fun too. Neither is "better" than another (since everyone has varied tastes). It's all taste.

I'm not a fan of blitz games because I don't think quick reaction decisions reach the highest level of thought, and the popularity of it may be "dumbing down" the chess world. As someone said above, the goals are not the same. Working toward a checkmate requires strategy, not just tactics. It is essentially a different game. While Fisher, Tal and other masters may have been able to play fast, I think the championship matches that made them famous were not blitz games. I like the artistry of brilliant combinations (like Alekhine) and to me that is more interesting than a long string of wins by eliminating all pieces or beating the clock.

Gonna go off of what LaConseillante just said. It's the same game, and it's played, at face value, the same at any speed (move your pieces in the same way). It's just different goals. Slow games are purely about reaching checkmate via tactics and calculated strategy. Blitz is about mental stamina, quick calculation and trying to catch the opponent off guard. But you're still going for checkmate and tactics there, it's just not as prioritized as it would be in a slow game.

Look at that. A "nice tactic from a blitz game" forum.

Horse racing, steeplechase, and dressage are all sports played on horseback, but they are NOT the same sport.

I think your speed chess is garbage.

A 5-min blitz game provides enough time to play a reasonably. In this case, slow learners are "garbage."

A game is only as good as your skill. If you play a bad 5-min game, blame your own incompetence or slow wit, not the time.

"Garbage in, garbage out."

Bullet, blitz and standard require different mindsets for best performance. Knowledge becomes a greater asset on shorter time controls, but so does fast thinking.

960, Bughouse and 3-Check are all played on a chess board. And they are all commonly referred to as chess variants. I think blitz and bullet can also be classified as such, but not to the extent of the aforementioned variants. 960 does rely on checkmate, but 3-Check sure doesn't and bughouse requires immense coordination with teammates.

From someone with a 2116 rating in blitz who you would think would have a vested interest in bigging it up.