❌INCREMENT❌ in blitz chess has to go ! Seriously !

Increment should not be used in blitz chess ! It ruins the game ! How can people not understand that !?

Let me ask you one question, just out of curiosity. Let's say we play a standard blitz game, 5 0. We reach a completely equal opposite square bishop endgame, were both of us have like 3 or 4 pawns remaining or so. However, I still have 3 minutes remaining, while you have 5 seconds. Do you think you deserve a draw? I say no. Reasoning behind that is quite simple - blitz is all about combining your play with your ability to manage time. In this particular example, we reached the same position with me using 2 minutes to think, while you used 4 minutes 55 seconds to think. Who knows what would have happened if I used the same amount of time to think? Maybe I would be able to play better and we wouldn't even reach this endgame? However, I managed my time better, and in this case you deserve to lose, and don't give me that crap about "but it's a draw, it is unsportsmanlike to play on time!". That is what's blitz all about - combination between your play and time management. Adding increment takes this out of the blitz game, or at least lessens the factor of time.

Lets put in a simple way. If at some point of the game you have 1 minute left against my 3 minutes, it means you needed twice more time than me to reach that same position! so why shouldn't I be able to keep that advantage and possibly convert that to a win?

Lets put it a simple way. There has to be a strategy that will work with and without tactics of time being taken into account in the extensive form of the game versus simple normal form. In non-game theory speak, what i mean is that strategy involves having a draw condition with a foresight that involves just bounded rationality. Hope you concur.

I first played speed chess before the era of digital clocks.  They were analog clocks with red flags.  There was no such thing as increment.

And when we played, you didn't have to say, "Check" and if you didn't get your King out of check, then the other guy could just swoop in and take it!  And win the game!  Playing 5 minute chess with no increment and having the possiblility of taking the other player's King was loads of fun!

I agree with you. I personally rarely play blitz with increment. I am someone who plays fast and in most of the games, I am usually ahead on the clock. However with increment that means nothing. The opponent could easily win back crucial seconds, and then I have no adv. for the trade-off of making perhaps not the best moves to be up on the clock.

When I play 3I2, instead of 3I0, which I usually play, I just get crushed. I like making 'insane' plays and let the opponent eat up his clock working out the complicated position. The 'bluff' is usually called but he has eaten so much of his clock that even a piece down, I am fine.

In increment that just doesn't work. I won't say however that there must be no increment at all. Those who want to play increment chess or blitz are welcome to it. Just choose to play without increment and you should be fine.

I was talking about OTB chess ONLY not online , thx.

I've seen people losing on time and/or blundering miserably due to time pressure in 90+30 games, time will be always a factor.

The increment makes the game more correct and fewer errors. There are not premoves in real chess.

But wait... If we use your statement of blitz being combination between your play and time management, isn't what you just described a perfect example of this? Your opponent used his time to get to an ending where he is able to play with just increments alone. You on the other hand spared 3 minutes to get to an ending where you don't really need to use those 3 minutes. Like you said yourself, if you would've used extra 2 minutes to make your moves, you would've probably had a better endgame position. Doesn't this mean that your opponent managed his time better than you did? Perhaps he is not as quick to calculate on quick tactical sequences, but is very comfortable playing quick in the endgame with just few pawns on the board. Perhaps he used the time he was given to get the best result possible? Perhaps he chose to play with increments, because he is more comfortable playing with them, and would lose on a quick game without them. You might be stronger than someone playing 3-5 minute games, but add some extra time, and they will kick your butt. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. We can either play the time controls we're comfortable in, or challenge ourselves to get better in the ones we're not doing so well.

If you don't like increments, you can always select to play games without them. It's that simple.

If you don't like it, don't play it. That is your choice.

Personally, I far prefer it. It leads to higher quality chess IMO.

How about just play 5 min game. You dont have to use increment

Choose what? Most tournaments using an increment in blitz time controls, do I tell them I want to play without increment?

Yeah. 25/5d in particular gets my vote for the worst time control ever to have been used in a serious tournament. The delay is so short as to be pointless, and the time control itself punishes serious players who actually use all 25 minutes instead of blitzing all of their moves like an impatient nine-year-old. 25/10, 15/10 and 30/0 are all far superior. In the first two, crazy time scrambles are mitigated by the increment and you can actually gain clock time instead of blitzing out moves forever. In the last one, time scrambles are in nobody’s interest.

One thing I’m absolutely sure of: 25/5d is utterly pointless and should be replaced by something which is actually worthwhile.

"We have titled players (NM's) who have never played a game with 60 minutes on the clock. Think about that."

Are you sure about that?  That seems like an overexaggerated claim.

That's interesting that there are National Masters who have never played one USCF game with 60+ minutes on the clock.

BTW, that speed chess was played 30+ years ago when there was no digital clocks and no internet.  

 Well, I happen to think 0-increment chess is stupid and ridiculous.  So what now?

Draw?