Now you're learning bigpoisson!
My opinion on 1 minute games
Sort:
Arrange a match between two players of equal rating.
Give Player A two hours to finish the game. Give Player B one minute.
Player A will win every time.
Arrange a match between a 1600 and 1400.
Give the 1400 two hours to finish the game. Give the 1600 one minute. The 1400 will win nearly all - if not all - of the games.
Bullet's bullsh**. It has nothing to do with the skill required in real chess.
Case closed.
It's been real gents! Joey, stop being so freaking hard on yourself. You're a wonderful human being.
One other point. As I've said countless times, I have no problem with people characterizing bullet as a form of entertainment. But to compare it to real chess is absurd - I know it, you know it and anyone who's spent even five seconds thinking about it knows it. The problem with you gents is you take the same mindless approach to arguing about bullet that you bring to bullet itself. You can't stop to think. You're so busy hurriedly trying to refute anything I say that you can't stop for a minute or two and think because you think the clock will run out. What a pathetic way to go through life - reacting on impulse with everything.
Think, gents. Think. Take a minute or two. No need to quickly reply. This isn't a bullet discussion LOL
@Chesspolly, a "freelance writer" with money on his mind, and a chip on his shoulder for internet discussions. No surprises there.
So start a thread on the perils of Bug House, then you can brow beat the kids too. Why limit yourself to just Bullet Chess?
AcivilizedGentleman wrote:
So basically you're saying that you're so hilariously bad at bullet that you can't beat people who do nothing but random moves waiting for your clock to run out and because of that they're mean cheaters that should rethink their way of playing.
..
..
..
-giggle-
BTW, some amazing, important and wonderful news: I'm getting a pet hedgehog. It's going to be awesomely cute.
That is an awesome hedgehog!
I see zborg's resorted to personal attacks cause he's got nothing else. Is that like cursing out people who beat you at bullet? I guess I just won rotflmao!
I still think one minute chess is too drawn-out and "cerebral" for me. I did grow up watching MTV, ya know. Is anyone on here interested in trying out some 15 or 20 second games?
Any tactic worth its salt requires a little more thought than bullet allows. I think you're referring to cheap shots and not tactics, Big D. And the cheap shots you see in bullet will never work in a real chess game.
Wow. I'm just swatting down these pathetic attempts at justifying bullet like flies. Who's buzzing around my fly swatter next?
Have you ever seen Masters play bullet chess? Some intense positional and tactical plays are maade. However, 99% of chess players cannot form many in depth strategies in such a limited time frame. Therefore it is whoever can organize an offense first, no matter how terrible, wins.
In war it is sometimes not the most powerful force that wins, but the one who strikes the fastest and most often. Consider Vietnam. America had a much more powerful, organized, and effective military than NV. However, due to the consistency and unpredictability of the NV attacks, even if the American military was overall doing better militarily it did not matter. Due to the fact that the media would hype up the NV success, and soldiers were demoralized due to paranoia and fear of being struck at any moment. This is like bullet chess. Just because your plan may be better in the long run and your position is stronger, does not mean you are necessarily the one in the position for the first strike. Sometimes one swift strike is all you need, and in bullet chess this is ever more true.
Bullet players aren't seeing tactics; they're seeing cheap shots that would never work in a real chess game.
I guess by your analogy john a 1600 player ought to be able to beat a 1400 player with one minute for the game while the 1400 has two hours because the 1600 is striking faster and more often? Doesn't work because the 1400 has time to think and refute the bullsh** and cheap shots that the 1600 is looking to do.
No one's been able to refute that simple point. Pair up a weaker chess player with two hours for the game against a stronger player with one minute and the weaker player will win, as long as their rating difference is not astronomical.
But my earlier point still holds true - how come you guys are so easily distracted about the merits of bullet when this forum was supposed to be about how to improve at bullet? When you know bullet's mostly luck and BS, you don't really have much to talk about, do you?
In relating to your post Jamesbh, there isn't many winning options in 1 minute chess other than time. I know it's possible to be check mate in less than a minute, but a high calibre player aint going to let that happen. Just play suicide chess is an options.
Aug 3, 2012
0
#75
@chesspooljuly13 If by your own admission "bullet" is not chess, but presumably game/120 is chess, then where do you draw the line? Or is it a gradual thing, where a 10 minute game is something like 25% real chess?
On the other hand, I find the argument that it's the same game, with different skills required to excel very compelling, because it is also explains correspondence, which in turn has its own skills of value. One could argue further that no-computer-correspondence has a far different set of skills than yes-computer-correspondence.
It's worth nothing though that there are some titled players that are pretty bad at bullet chess, probably because they're not used to the setting. For instance, I've seen WGM Camilla Backinskate's rating as low as 1700, but not long ago I just saw her cream an 1850 8 games to 1, and is now close to 2000.
You have to apply some chess skill, and you also need to make a few adjustments to your play when you change the time control. The most important skill, IMO, in bullet, is the ability to go 50 moves without hanging a piece. You can still play some pretty bad chess in those 50 moves, but you at least avoid the most fundamental errors.
If you have that kind of consistency, it's hard to come up with ideas that will break through your position in a 1 minute game.
OTB Chess ability, on average, makes you better at bullet, but it doesn't follow that you will be good at bullet just because you are good at OTB chess. Again, certain adjustments need to be made.
chesspooljuly13 wrote:
I guess by your analogy john a 1600 player ought to be able to beat a 1400 player with one minute for the game while the 1400 has two hours because the 1600 is striking faster and more often? Doesn't work because the 1400 has time to think and refute the bullsh** and cheap shots that the 1600 is looking to do.
No one's been able to refute that simple point. Pair up a weaker chess player with two hours for the game against a stronger player with one minute and the weaker player will win, as long as their rating difference is not astronomical.
But my earlier point still holds true - how come you guys are so easily distracted about the merits of bullet when this forum was supposed to be about how to improve at bullet? When you know bullet's mostly luck and BS, you don't really have much to talk about, do you?
I am fairly certain a master with 1 minute would beat most of us with 2 hours. They would do all the thinking they needed to do while we were busy trying to refute their attacks.
Hell, half of the time I only spend 1-4 minutes in my blitz games and win against players who use all their time. It is easy to think when your opponent is moving slowly, just predict their movements.
Also chesspool, please refute my analogy. I deserve a refutation just like everyone else!
Big D Clark, with all due respect, I have seen titled players struggle with people who basically hide in a shell in their 1 minute games. I don't think it makes them bad players; I think it just means they haven't made the necessary adjustments from their OTB game to a bullet game.
Yes computer correspondence has no skill required because you're relying on the computer. Even someone who just learned how to play chess yesterday could beat a master by playing computer-assisted correspondence chess.
My whole point is that chess is probably the most complex game ever invented and requires thought to play it the way it was meant to be played.
On the post about different time differences, I'm strictly comparing bullet to chess played under a classical time control, which, last time I checked was 2 hours for 40 moves, one hour to finish the game, though they may have changed since then. The lower the time control, the greater the chance for mistakes, the worse the chess. Lowering the time control to a minute greatly increases the chance for mistakes and lousy chess games that are won because Player A just made pointless moves very quickly to run out his opponent's clock. I have no idea what time control is ideal - but I know one minute isn't.
Bullet is skill most chess players don't possess. Myself included.
And there's a premium on being young, and being able to do it.
Why so many bitch about it baffling, it's mostly a sour grapes type of argument. @Joey is right, those bitching shouldn't be allow to reproduce. Enter as contestants for the Darwin Awards, instead.
And @Chesspolly, you really need work on your analogies. You're like Brother from Another Planet, without the pinball machines.
And exclusively Online Chess players, like a certain writer from Connecticut, you should stick to having sex with your toy computer, and leave the bullet folks alone. Bullet is an acquired taste. Surely. You have already given us your Treatise on Money. Breathtakingly deep.
Consider adding a 5 or 10 second bonus to whatever time control you are playing, and learn to reach the end of the game on the board, instead of the clock. That will force you to learn moving fast, and introduce you to the bullet mindset.
Otherwise, zip it, and leave the Bullet Junkies alone. Just envy them. And lament the fact that youth is (somehow) wasted on the young.
One of the local Masters in my area plays bullet against (nearly) all comers at 1 minute versus 5. Very exciting stuff to watch. How he finds so many decent, or even good moves, at that speed is just amazing.
Some people can do it. Most can't. Get over it.