And I'm not just talking about cheap tricks, but crude plans also. Like mindlessly pushing your pawns to try to attack. GM's probably don't do that, mainly because they're GMs. You can't compare amateur blitz to gm blitz.
Is it okay to suck at blitz chess?
Sort:
I would say that it is pretty clear that a correspondence game that lasts 3 months, with the use of books and databasis, will tend to be of a higher quality than a blitz game between the same players. Of course two grandmasters will produce a higher quality of game in blitz than two beginners would in a correspondence game but they would still be be playing better in a correspondence game. The question is, is the quality that much higher as to reward this expenditure of time ? Or perhaps it might be more economical to spend the time you would be spending on a single correspondence game to play a lot of blitz games in different positions and against different opponents.
Tricklev wrote:
That might be mostly due to your inexperience in blitz though, elubas, I´m not going to deny that alot of blitz players play for cheapos, but they seem to be less and less frequent the higher you go. Have you given blitz a real chance?
Yes! In live chess 1 I had around 200 blitz games and that's just how it seemed to work. I've just given up on taking it in anyway seriously (but it still feels bad to lose, so I don't play it much either).
I think you and costelus will never believe that someone can be good at chess, but be a poor blitz player. I have actually played a decent amount of blitz, I'm not just pulling this stuff out of my ass. I'm sharing what my experiences were.
In fact sometimes I outplay a strong blitz player but not at all suprised to see myself eventually lose in the time pressure.
No, I believe what you are saying, that someone can be a poor blitz player, but still a good slow time controll or cc player.I´m just of the opinion that´s it is not uncurable, if you want to change it, that is.
And it probably has somewhat to do with how much you enjoy it.
Tricklev wrote:
No, I believe what you are saying, that someone can be a poor blitz player, but still a good slow time controll or cc player.I´m just of the opinion that´s it is not uncurable, if you want to change it, that is.
And it probably has somewhat to do with how much you enjoy it.
Yeah if I worked on my blitz as much as I do on chess in general I'm sure I could become good at it but for me there is just no motivation and I don't want to play moves inconsistent with my style. And it's certainly possible the focus on blitz could hurt my standard (remember this is how it is OTB) which is what I really care about.
First of all nobody studies how to play blitz. You get better at blitz by getting better at chess in general.
I was curious and I looked at your blitz rating you have here, Elubas: 1450. To me this looks pretty consistent with the USCF rating you list (1700), and definitely is way too high to say that "you suck at blitz". Of course, don't expect that your blitz game will have the same quality as your long games, but the point is that, given two players, the better one wins, no matter the time control.
Several years ago I also thought that blitz is not chess and that I will never be able to play a 3 minutes game. Then I was playing only long games (above 15 mins per side). For such time control, you must wait a lot until getting a reasonable match or you have to play in tourneys (on ICC this). Once, while waiting more than 15 minutes for an opponent, I started to play blitz. I was surprised to discover that I was not as bad as I have imagined. Sure, I was making huge mistakes, but so were my opponents.
costelus wrote:
I was curious and I looked at your blitz rating you have here, Elubas: 1450. To me this looks pretty consistent with the USCF rating you list (1700), and definitely is way too high to say that "you suck at blitz". Of course, don't expect that your blitz game will have the same quality as your long games, but the point is that, given two players, the better one wins, no matter the time control.
*There is definitely a strong correlation. But in my experience there are some people who beat me at blitz whom I beat in longer games, and some whom I beat in blitz who beat me in longer games. I try to play both.
Jan 11, 2010
0
#49
I think everyone is making great points. I also think that blitz uses real thinking...some people think faster than others...that's a fact. It introduces this factor into the game, I suspect...and obviously as everyone has said...practice improves this as well. Watching GMs play blitz has convinced me of that. That said, I can barely play an 8 minute per side blitz game.
Jan 11, 2010
0
#50
tryst wrote:
"Some people are good at blitz/bullet chess. Others are good at OTB chess. Still others are good at both."
Good lord, chessbeginner77, I think that's the most neutral answer I've ever read.
That was seriously funny!
The main reason blitz is so popular on the internet is the fact that people don't like waiting long for their opponent's move.
Jan 11, 2010
0
#52
costelus wrote:
First of all nobody studies how to play blitz. You get better at blitz by getting better at chess in general.
That's not the case with me. I have done serious tactical work over the past year, my chess in general has improved a lot, but I don't think my blitz improved one bit, and it's on a level that's almost incomparable to my "slow" chess level. Considering I have thrown out my opening repertoire out of the window and started from scratch, it is probably worse than where it was a year ago by now. That's of course mainly due to me being a really slow calculator, but also because blitz improvement requires blitz practice I suppose, and I don't have much of that.
If you ask me I think Bliz and quick or long games are all the same just different time limits. Ok I must say Bliz can be kinda confusing. Because it seems its longer than long games but quicker then short games.
philidor_position wrote:
costelus wrote:
First of all nobody studies how to play blitz. You get better at blitz by getting better at chess in general.
That's not the case with me. I have done serious tactical work over the past year, my chess in general has improved a lot, but I don't think my blitz improved one bit, and it's on a level that's almost incomparable to my "slow" chess level. Considering I have thrown out my opening repertoire out of the window and started from scratch, it is probably worse than where it was a year ago by now. That's of course mainly due to me being a really slow calculator, but also because blitz improvement requires blitz practice I suppose, and I don't have much of that.
Hmm, I could see how this would be true for some people, but my experiance has been the same as costelus, my blitz has improved only after my long play has improved (certainly never the other way around).
As long as a player is capable of both, I think this is how it works. For slow calculators who never played blitz to begin with I can see how it woudln't matter how much you improve if you can't move quickly.
Elubas wrote:
Yes! In live chess 1 I had around 200 blitz games and that's just how it seemed to work. I've just given up on taking it in anyway seriously (but it still feels bad to lose, so I don't play it much either).
. . .
In fact sometimes I outplay a strong blitz player but not at all suprised to see myself eventually lose in the time pressure.
Maybe try some blitz on FICS ? Obviously I've lost many blitz games here but they just aren't satisfying win or lose, like you said many people just pushing wood, playing blitz on FICS/ICC is a completely different experience.
The clock is a big part of the game. You have to be aware of when you're taking too long. If you know you're winning but trying to come up with the correct idea or sequence you have to be willing to cut it short and play just an ok move. I often spend half my clock in the first 20-30 moves trying to get a good position, and then it seems to surprise my opponent with how fast I can blitz from there once I have a good handle on what's going on.
If I'm never able to get a good handle on things, I often loose on time with my opponent still having more than a minute left (which is an enormous time difference).
Most of intermediate players finish their games in the middlegame due to tactical mistakes. Rarely they reach an equal endgame. If you play in higher level, the probability to reach tough endgame is getting higher, and even though the time control is 2 hours, it will often become a blitz endgame. Then you will appreciate blitz skill more.
I believe my standard skill is a lot better than my blitz skill. But playing CC is not interesting if you have to continue the next day when you have forgotten all the calculation you have done the other day. Also, players in my level mostly own a chess software, and I don't like the idea of playing against human plus a software.
But I can probably use the live chess to play at longer time control, say 45 to 60 minutes. I will do that but currently I'm just having fun with my 10 minute games filled with network disconnections...
Study the blitz masters, the champ is from USA (Naka) There is some good blitz books too.
First I hated blitz, but today I think it's fun!
Since you have so little time, you need to play it safe, the tactics are usually easyer than in longer games. Play safe and use your time when you know it must be some tactics. (to have some fast waiting moves while you think helps)
orangehonda wrote:
Elubas wrote:
Yes! In live chess 1 I had around 200 blitz games and that's just how it seemed to work. I've just given up on taking it in anyway seriously (but it still feels bad to lose, so I don't play it much either).
. . .
In fact sometimes I outplay a strong blitz player but not at all suprised to see myself eventually lose in the time pressure.
Maybe try some blitz on FICS ? Obviously I've lost many blitz games here but they just aren't satisfying win or lose, like you said many people just pushing wood, playing blitz on FICS/ICC is a completely different experience.
The clock is a big part of the game. You have to be aware of when you're taking too long. If you know you're winning but trying to come up with the correct idea or sequence you have to be willing to cut it short and play just an ok move. I often spend half my clock in the first 20-30 moves trying to get a good position, and then it seems to surprise my opponent with how fast I can blitz from there once I have a good handle on what's going on.
If I'm never able to get a good handle on things, I often loose on time with my opponent still having more than a minute left (which is an enormous time difference).
Do you think it's good to take some time to make a plan at one point, taking awhile, and blitz at least with a clear idea? But with 3-5 minute, that's pretty costly, ESPECIALLY if there is no increment. I hate no increment/delay chess too.
Costelus, maybe when I improve by another 300 points or so will I go back to blitz and see if the crude play can still beat me 
. I tend to play a lot of 1500s on standard live chess (they're usually the highest rated players who want to play me) and they get totally outplayed. I would not be suprised that most of these people are mostly blitz players who decided to throw in a long game, because they often move remarkably quickly considering how much time they have. I suspect if I were to play a blitz game against many of them their crude strategy and tactics simply played quickly would probably due quite decent against me.
It's not that I'm not a good calculator, because I can calculate several moves ahead sometimes. Maybe it's because I'm a slow calculator who is afraid to be wrong so I will double to triple check (and really this is important I think when dealing with long variations, because there are so many quiet moves you could miss, any one of them turning the winning line into a losing one, etc) my analysis and wouldn't want to make a rushed decision. To exploit a positional advantage quite honestly takes deep thinking to figure out correctly, in my opinion. If I have pressure on the b file against a b2 pawn, what am I going to do? At that point it's very hard to find what you're really supposed to do, so basically I look for a crush or crushing plan, don't find one and have wasted time. I'm suddenly in some time pressure, my opponent is still going for simple but quick tricks, I eventually fall for one and am in both time pressure and a losing position. Even if I could find a way to breakthrough, I would still be in time pressure which is absolutely horrible when you don't have increment.
Elubas wrote:
Do you think it's good to take some time to make a plan at one point, taking awhile, and blitz at least with a clear idea? But with 3-5 minute, that's pretty costly, ESPECIALLY if there is no increment. I hate no increment/delay chess too.
It's funny, now that I think about it this is how I play at any time control, even tournaments. I spend tons of time trying to get a good position and from there it's easier for me and I usually catch back up on the clock.
JG27Pyth wrote:
B) The 3 days per move opening goes 18 moves deep in a closed Ruy Lopez down a line played at Linares last year but your opponent heads into uncharted waters on his 19th move and what follows is a tense slow battle with little in the way of action on the board -- underneath there have been game changing sac's lurking a half-move away, but each time you or your opponent has spotted the coming attack and made the needed unobvious adjustment to prevent disaster. The fireworks are in the notes. Bit by bit the unessential is stripped away until all that is left is the stark bones of a game -- a tempo here, a king a step closer to the center there -- A vulnerable but mobile pawn majority on a wing -- a Bishop vs. a N. Just when it seems your opponent is going to convert his extra pawn into a win you sacrifice your N to deflect his pawn to the rook file, where, despite being a piece down, you know the technique to hold the draw. The game took 3 months to play. 1/2 -1/2
Here is how I would write the same thing (please, don't take it too serious or personal).
The 3 days per move opening goes 18 moves deep in a closed Ruy Lopez following the game Anand-Ivanchuk from Linares last year. Neither me nor my opponent had any idea about the motivations behind those moves, but that's not important. Everything looked fine for me as White since Anand eventually won that game at move 62. My opponent heads into uncharted waters on his 19th move. I look up the move in the database: white scores 35%, Black scores 65%. Damned, I'm cooked! How come Ivanchuck did not see that move 19th? I used chessbase to navigate through my 10-million game database and suddenly Fritz starts and shows 20. Qe2. I swear I didn't start it on purpose - what a crap software, perhaps I should buy CA - now I have to think about my next move. I will take three days and analyze extensively. The position is not sharp, therefore the moves are not forced. This makes things even more difficult for me, since I have to go over many different lines, at least 9-10 moves deep each. I put everything in the notes. At the end of the 3 days I conclude that 20. Qe2 is indeed the best move. Not because Fritz told this, but because of my analysis. What a strong player I am!
That might be mostly due to your inexperience in blitz though, elubas, I´m not going to deny that alot of blitz players play for cheapos, but they seem to be less and less frequent the higher you go. Have you given blitz a real chance?