I'm funding bullet chess very instructional.
Sort:
Many of the blunders I make in 2-1 I likely also would have made in 10 minute. Playing more moves means I get more computer feedback on my tactics. I don't have time to sharpen other areas, it seems, but I'm definitely learning tactical principles. For example, during multi-trades, it is often better to pin and pile up rather than immediately recapture. Given the choice of recaptures, it is often best to send pieces that provoke immediate recapture so they don't get piled up on. There are some low rated players beating me tactically.
It is disturbing I can lose material without computer analysis saying I made so much as an inaccuracy. However, I at least know to do my own analysis there. Bullet chess is shining a spotlight on my gut worries and forcing me to have better responses ready, or so we'll see. My bullet rating now is 300 points lower than my blitz, and 450 points lower than my daily.
My bullet is better than my blitz. In another chess website, I'm also better at bullet. You are the opposite. Your blitz is better than your bullet. It proves something: bullet and blitz are different things. If you wanna improve your chess, you must play everything.
I'm amazed at how strong bullet players rated 900 are. The computer analysis is useless. As my position gets crushed, the computer is silent, not saying I made any mistakes. My opponents are showing me positions I must analyse myself much more. Even looking for a full minute, I don't see an escape.
They are showing me holes in my game, and that computer analysis, at least browser based, fails to show most errors. I'll have to figure this out myself and hopefully emerge stronger. Or more likely, I'll learn by playing more bullet games and trying their techniques on them.
The average bullet chess rating on chess.com is about 300 points lower than the average blitz rating. I wondered how that is possible if we all start at 1200 and points gained by winners are lost equally by losers. The answer is they are not. During the first 10 games, our rating fluctuates greatly, while our opponent's does not. Bullet chess is so different from blitz that most newbies do poorly till they adapt 15 games later. By then the points are gone for good, and they must play low rated opponents of equal strength to fight for them back. There are 1/4 as many bullet players as blitz players, and so new comers will be far more used to blitz. An extra 200 points can be explained by personal differences or connection speeds.
If most of the games you played in a bullet game were exactly the moves you would have played in a 10 min game, then it simply shows that you don't spend enough time thinking the moves when you play 10 min games. You just play those games at bullet speed as well.
So if you are going to spend not more than 2 seconds on a move, then you are better off playing bullet anyway. That way you and your oopponent are playing under the same clock pressure. In a 10 min game, the opponent uses the full 10 mins, while you are just blitzing out moves as if you were playing a bullet game.
JayeshSinhaChess wrote:
Thinking longer does mean better moves some of the time, which can make a game changing difference. It is just 75% of the time that my moves are the same.
If most of the games you played in a bullet game were exactly the moves you would have played in a 10 min game, then it simply shows that you don't spend enough time thinking the moves when you play 10 min games. You just play those games at bullet speed as well.
So if you are going to spend not more than 2 seconds on a move, then you are better off playing bullet anyway. That way you and your oopponent are playing under the same clock pressure. In a 10 min game, the opponent uses the full 10 mins, while you are just blitzing out moves as if you were playing a bullet game.