Is it reasonable to play only rapid games?

Sort:
Colby-Covington
DaniilKalabukhov wrote:

GMs don't play rapid because at the higher level it's so easy to cheat effectively. Players under 1600-1800 usually don't even know how to cheat in the game. Or their cheating is super obvious so they can be caught easily. Apart from some serious tournaments, it's widely considered to be a beginner's time format. Most advanced online players nowadays prefer Blitz, that is self-evident. I don't believe cheating has anything to do with it.

 For instance I can simply know that my sacrifice on h7 is going to be successful not because I've calculated 5 different variations in 5 seconds, but because I have the experience in these types of positions. And that is exactly how you learn. What you meant by "having experience in those positions" was memorizing them. That is what happens when you play under time pressure, you are forced to prepare your lines beforehand and ultimately internalize them faster, because you have to memorize them first. That is imo the fastest and most effective way to learn chess. Not sitting in front of a 30min game when you simply don't know anything yet. Play a lot of fast games and study as much as you can, that's my way. I just made Fide 2227 in Blitz so I absolutely believe in this method.

 

 

DaniilKalabukhov

Botvinnik said that bliz is bad for one's improvement.

Elite GMs can play strategically, because they have tons of OTB experience and they have extra level chess knowledge. We, mortals (who are under 2700 FIDE elo), don't know that much. And a lot of positions which are clear for elite GMs are unclear for us. This is a point.

Personally I play blitz games in order to improve my opening preparation. But for general improvement I play rapid games with my friends (it's hard to play rapid with random people for many reasons) and OTB games. And the thing which helps me the most is studying chess in all aspects.

DaniilKalabukhov

And the last point is: your opponents in blitz usually continue playing being down a piece, but in rapid or classical games they resign immediately. That's the difference.

Colby-Covington
DaniilKalabukhov wrote:

Botvinnik said that bliz is bad for one's improvement.

You should be more concerned with your own sentiment on the matter, based on your own knowledge and experience, that's usually a better way to approach these things.

Elite GMs can play strategically, because they have tons of OTB experience and they have extra level chess knowledge. We, mortals (who are under 2700 FIDE elo), don't know that much. And a lot of positions which are clear for elite GMs are unclear for us. This is a point.

What is your FIDE rating if I may ask?

Personally I play blitz games in order to improve my opening preparation. But for general improvement I play rapid games with my friends (it's hard to play rapid with random people for many reasons) and OTB games. And the thing which helps me the most is studying chess in all aspects.

And that's perfectly fine for you, personally.

Thank you for illustrating your opinion for what it is, an opinion.

Others still have to learn that lesson, I'm afraid.🙄

 

Colby-Covington
DaniilKalabukhov wrote:

And the last point is: your opponents in blitz usually continue playing being down a piece, but in rapid or classical games they resign immediately. That's the difference.

And that is your _______? 🤭

DaniilKalabukhov
What is your FIDE rating if I may ask?
My FIDE rating is small. It's 1900. I didn't play chess for about 10 years.
 
So what can I learn from this game apart from opening? I didn't have time to think, either my opponent. So I had better position from the opening and managed to win it.
 
 

So if you want something funny look at this game. My opponent was 2200+ and couldn't win being up 2 minor pieces. That's why I find blitz not really useful for improvement:

 

DaniilKalabukhov

And these 2 games are from Elite SuperBlitz Arena with 2200+ entry. Not a complete noob arena. Blitz doesn't help a lot IMHO.

So I plan to join my local city main OTB tournament this summer and I'm working on my chess a lot. And I stopped playing blitz and I can see a lot of success in the improvement of my chess understanding. I rely on Botvinnik's advice and find it very useful.

Shaikidow

Whoa, this turned into a somewhat heated discussion!... Nice, I'm glad it's been productive so far.

A few things to address, though:

1. Since llamonade2 lol'd at my "tournament-standard" remark, I went and double-checked. 25+10 was, indeed, the time control for both the World Rapid Championship and the recent World Championship Match tiebreaks. No real reason to lol there... lol.

2. What do you mean, rapid games are for noobs? I doubt that my own 1800-on-Lichess noobness is what defines it as such, and the format seems to be important enough to have its own World Championship, not to mention that the current classical champion is even more dominant in it than he is both in classical and blitz. It might have the greatest concentration of noobs among time formats, but that doesn't degrade it as an option, as far as I'm concerned.

3. I thought up the following hypothesis last night: the time format should be long enough for one to be able to think leisurely, but short enough not to allow one to overthink and fall victim to the infamous Kotov Syndrome. Ever panicked at the fact that you have TOO MUCH time on your clock? I know I have, at least in the sense that knowing that I might wait for my opponent's response for too long makes me antsy. On the other hand, look at how perfectionists like Caruana throw away some of their wins by refusing to play intuitively and spending WAY too much time where they should just go Magnus and play reasonably quickly.

You_play_well

I only play Rapid baby. Blitz is too fast for me to play well, and longer games take too long to play when there's a chance I could lose due to disconnection. Rapid keeps me on my toes and allows me to play reasonably well.

Plus I've gotten the numbers of some beautiful laydeez through Rapid play.grin.png

Colby-Covington
DaniilKalabukhov wrote:
So what can I learn from this game apart from opening? I didn't have time to think, either my opponent. So I had better position from the opening and managed to win it.
Your opening is riddled with inaccuracies in this game and I think you got lucky that your opponent did not exploit these weaknesses.
 
 

Here you clearly played better, but this time your opponent even blunders his knight for no apparent reason. That must have been towards the end of the tournament, right?

You are definitely a solid player, let's play a couple games.

I like your Indian opening, I'm studying the London System right now so these type of positions already ring some bells for me. How long have you been playing?

Caesar49bc

I only play rapid, and perfectly content with it.

CreativeChess10

I think rapid is the best option because many nationals or fide takes 10+0 or 15+10 . Blitz is ok but after u learnt from your rapid games and studies. U can apply it in blitz. 20 fast wins is not better than 5 classical loss

tygxc

#1
"Is it reasonable to play only rapid games?"
Yes, exclusively playing 15|10 online is probably best.
The over the board standard 90|30 is not convenient online.