I think Speed Chess is garbage.

You are garbage too i wonder why your parent's still didn't leave you.

Wow.

I actually think tonymura is right on this one, and you’re getting unreasonably salty. 

i was just joking

Oh ok, that seemed to edge the line. Glad this thread hasn’t broken down into madness.  

All good  👍 

:bk :wq

It is certainly annoying when you have a completely won position or a dead draw, and your opponent just manages to make garbage moves fast enough that your clock drops first.

I am quite a good speed chess player OTB but useless on-line.  It is much faster to pick up and move a physical piece and tap a real clock than to move a piece with a mouse. Then there are the transmission and processing delays.  So I lose lots of positions on time that I would have been able to cash in with a real board, pieces and clock.

As for the general thrust of this thread.  Very strong players can play recognizably good chess at speed, because of their very rapid sight of the board and familiarity with a huge range of positions.  We lesser players have neither.  And regardless of the facts that Tal and Fischer played stronger chess in 5-minute games than I can manage with unlimited time, and Carlsen plays respectable chessat 1-minute or less ... everyone plays better given time to probe deeply into a position and to calculate tactical lines accurately when the position requires it.

It does indeed seem to be true that stronger chess players, on the whole, have less of a difference in ability when comparing their classical skill, to their blitz. (In the sense that usually if you're a master in one you won't be a lot worse in the other format.) And although everyone can play somewhat better with more time on the clock, compared to themselves, surely it's possible to be a respectable amateur in slow chess, but very bad comparatively at blitz or bullet. For instance my rapid rating is a lot higher than my blitz or bullet, even when taking into account possible rating inflations due to different player pools... Imo people have different abilities when it comes to how to use extra time available in slower games, at least at amateur levels. Yes familiarity is important to save time on the clock, but there's also the dimension of how to make an initially unfamiliar position into one that's understandable, during one's game.

speed chess is not garbage. You only need to do time deliberation . Oh,and before i post, if your lowest rating is blitz, or bullet just leave it and focus on the type of chess you like, then focus in blitz or bullet.  Even my bullet rating is !88. So don't worry about blitz/bullet. And don't follow my advice if you do not agree to it . 

=> tonymura.   My experience bears out your ideas.    Over the board  I am at present rated around 2000 ... always a few points above or below.  At my best in England a few years ago I reached a 197 BCF rating ( = high 2100's).  I joined chess.com only 2 or 3 weeks ago.  My slow rating is steadily increasing from the starting point of 1200 and I expect it to top out a bit higher than my OTB rating, but I struggle to stay over 1800 at faster time limits.  At bullet I cannot even maintain the starting rating of 1200.

=>  ahaansri

Very fast chess, played by anyone below master strength is not garbage as a sporting competition but the quality of chess, viewed purely as chess, is almost always garbage when it is between players significantly below master level.

I have been rated between 1900 and 2200  in over-the-board chess for most of the last 50 (!) years. That is  still weak compared to IMs and GMs, even if it seems strong to much lower rated players.  How weak? Well,  I have yet to play a game  of significant length in which computer analysis does not reveal me to have made at least one serious inaccuracy, if not an outright blunder.

i play rapid usually. I don't recommend anyone playing bullet or blitz. People are tilting on those modes and it's not really a big deal. Bullet is just like some "video game"

yes speed chess is garbage , classic chess is much harder , it really bad so many people think biltz is hard and a big deal ,it's not at all

Wrong it proves how fast you can think

In my opinion the real game of chess is in time 3, 5 minutes (or 10 minutes max). The rest is more training, learning, a long game gives more the feeling of working than having fun or playing.

For example it's like playing SC2 at slow speed rather than faster. The micro and macro are more easier so you play naturaly better but you don't play the really  SC2 game,  you rather do training something like that.

For a AI the story of the Kotov tree is ok but for human is more joke.  The story of being able the master the game of chess can be possible (in maybe futur) for a super, super, super calculator with computer memory but for human is just a joke.

yeah i can see why you would dislike it