The strategy used by a weaker player with a lot of time vs. a master with one minute could easily be changed. While the master is thinking of logical moves the weaker player would make, let the weaker play passively or unpredictably (i.e. not the moves a player would anticipate.) In that sense, bullet corrupts real chess even when only one player is playing with a minute for the game.
My opinion on 1 minute games
Sort:
I already said I couldn't care less how many people play bullet. Just don't compare it to real chess. There is no comparison and it's ridiculous that some people think there is
chesspool why does it bother you so much? It has the same normal strategy. And an actual good player would see the weakness of many strange moves.
It's just a majority of us are not good players (1900+). So who are we to determine what is and what is not chess? It is not like anyone below GM level can really contribute anything of major change or theory to the game of chess. So really only those players who can apply such a contribution have the right to make such calls. And even then, who are they to make such calls? Just because they are better than us at the game they should make such decisions? To hell with that. Chess is what you want it to be, it is a game. enjoy it and let other people enjoy it. Don't be a chess facist.
Aug 3, 2012
0
#85
You know, they say to use your opponent's time as well as your own. Therefore, that player with the 1 minute should still have 2 hours. Only way to do that would be to not let them see the board until their opponent has decided on their move and let them watch it. Seems a little impractical.
Shadowknight911 wrote:
Big_D_Clark wrote:
Bullet helps you improve in chess greatly. Many tactics that you may see in regulalr time controls you will miss in bullet, and will lose. Therefore it will improve your tactical ability greatly, and will help you improve overall as a chess player.
that's garbage. You don't see tactics in bullet because you're not thinking - all you're doing is making some legal move that looks reasonably good. If you spent any time thinking, even one second, you would lose.
No, its not garbage. What you have to do to maximise benefits, however, is play through your bullet games after a loss and analyze (slowly) where you missed particular tactics. Then you will be better prepared for future matches.
Furthermore, I dont understand what all the fuss is about. There is NO LUCK in bullett chess -- it is pure skill, just like standard time control (2.5 hours for 40 moves) chess.
You win a bullet chess game by making the best possible move based on the position. In bullet chess you just do it faster. If you can't pick out the best possible move in the position fast enough to compete in bullet chess, then I feel sorry for ya.
As Ivan Drago told Apollo Creed right before the exhibition match in the fine film Rocky IV (1985) . . . "You will lose."
That might be going a bit far. By that logic we always have twice as much time as what the clock says. We know it's much harder to think of your move before you know what move you will be directly replying to. Nonetheless, if you only have a minute, you will use the other two hours much more dilligently than if you also had two hours.
Also, I disagree that being able to find the best move is what's essential in bullet chess. if you can play a perfect move in 2 seconds, but a good move in 1 second (you see the good move and look for nothing else), it's usually pretty good to do the latter. Unless of course you suspect there might be a way to win a piece. But it's risky: if you think for 8 seconds but don't actually see a way to win a piece or cause serious harm, you are now at a considerable disadvantage for the rest of the game. I think it's something you have to get a feel for, which, to a lesser degree, can also be said about standard chess.
In fact, taking a 5 second or more think is sort of like trying for a winner in tennis. You have to time it just perfectly because there are so many ways for it to go wrong, meanwhile it's so attractive to just rally the ball back safely (making a building move in bullet chess, not looking for a tactic).
Chess is so complex that today's computers can't "solve" it and a mathematician has said (Google it) that there are more possible chess games than there are atoms in the universe. Naturally, a game with that much complexity is best played in less than 60 seconds.
Y'all can say bullet's like real chess all you want. I know you're wrong and I know that you know you're wrong.
Let's all play some bullet golf. You have two seconds to hit your shot - no studying the green, no practice swings, no looking for the right club - when it's your turn to hit the ball you have less than two seconds to do it. And you better sprint to your ball after you hit it. Naturally the golf game will suck compared to the same players taking their time to study the green, check the angles, line up their shots and take a few practice swings. Just like bullet chess games suck and are a joke compared to real chess games.
But hey! It's just a different time control! Whoever has the best reflexes in mindlessly swinging their club wins! And then we'll all congratulate ourselves on how good we are at golf.
Aug 3, 2012
0
#91
Everyone, please stop! We all get that bullet chess is different than longer time controls! chesspooljuly13, please stop! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, PLEASE STOP!!!!!
Hahahaha. Ok. Feel like I've been repeating myself for the last few days.
No more posts from me on this thread
(cue applause)
lol, correspondence golf.
Aug 3, 2012
0
#94
"Bullet helps you improve in chess greatly."
. . . is definitely nonsense. This isn't to say there are no benefits to the game, or that it isn't fun or that it has no intrinsic value. It is what it is, but if anything, like blitz, it hurts your standard chess where moves are made by deep thinking rather than hurried-up possible tactics. Analyzing bullet games, or even blitz games, is time far better spent elsewhere. Finding a tactic (which may or may not be solid, but works in a fast game) or taking advantage of a mistake (that probably woudn't have occurred in a standard game) in 1 sec. as opposed to 15 seconds isn't any sort of improvement in chess play nor educational. Making a knee-jerk responses to knee-jerk moves is fun, but, as time is the main consideration over anything else, it's not directly correlated to standard chess unless one feels some personal investment in having such a delusion. One should be able to play and enjoy bullet or blitz without having to feel a need to justify or defend the games as compared to games played under standard time controls.
Aug 3, 2012
0
#95
Big_D_Clark wrote:
batgirl wrote:
Making a knee-jerk responses to knee-jerk moves is fun, but, as time is the main consideration over anything else, it's not directly correlated to standard chess unless one feels some personal investment in having such a delusion.
Yes but the better you get those knee-jerk responses to be, the better you can improve. If you can see tactics well in a 1 minute game, then you will have no problem seeing them in a game with longer time.
You improve your bullet, but that's about all. I don't play bullet but I play blitz, mostly 5/0. I don't think I've ever found a tactic in blitz that I would have missed in a standard game. Playing 10s of thousands of blitz games have made me more tactically attuned, but not tactically better.
Aug 3, 2012
0
#96
Big_D_Clark wrote:
Seeing as you are 1400 online, and 1000 in bullet, I think I'm assuming you will have a bias against bullet because you aren't very good at it. There's no problem with that, but I'd imagine it to be hard to not hate something that I'm not very good at.
As I said, I don't play bullet, but also don't use ratings here as any indicators. I am relatively decent at blitz and the same applies to blitz as applies to bullet.
Well, if there is a checkmate pattern you don't understand, it's probably more likely you will discover it in standard chess than it is that you will discover it in bullet chess.
I can confidently say that there has not been one, single instance, in bullet, where I discovered a new idea that I hadn't known of before. In fact, I think I could say the same for blitz. As batgirl said, bullet might make you more alert for tactics, but it won't teach you tactical ideas that you didn't know of before.
In my opinion, the irony is that it's really a sophisticated understanding, executed with patient study, of something that allows you to do it really quickly.
Let's take juggling as an example. If you want to be a great juggler, then of course, you want to do it fast, and you want to juggle many objects simultaneously. But how do you approach your goal? Do you just spend hours and hours juggling 10 balls, fail, and just keep trying? Or do you start out with two balls (or whatever) and learn the basic techniques first, which then make up the more difficult task? When you're distracted by all of those balls, it's hard to understand what you're trying to do because as you try to think about it they keep falling down. With less balls, you can focus more on the basic technique, and once you get good at that, you won't have to think as much with more complicated tasks.
Trying to learn every concept you need to know with bullet chess, in the hope to become better, is like endlessly trying the hardest tasks in juggling, over and over again, in the hope that you will get it.
Big_D_Clark wrote:
You won't overlook tactics, and will see tactics quicker,
I disagree. If your mind has no time to digest the tactics going on, how can you get more recognition of it? Recognition is what gives you speed. Your mind will forget about most of the tactics that occurred during the bullet game. Of course, you could go over the bullet game, but then you may as well go over a longer game so that it's easier to diagnose what's going on in your thinking.
Aug 3, 2012
0
#100
Playing faster doesn't reinforce tactics, unless you're playing the same position or game over and over and over. Repetition reinforces. Understanding reinforces, but playing fast does nothing of the sort except to make you more tactically aware at the expense of other things that have more relevance to standard games. I can't see in what context either bullet of blitz improves one's standard chess games; but I can see many ways where it impacts those games negatively.
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.
Chess is meant to be played in any manner both players mutual wish to enjoy the game, hence even Chess960 exists.
There is no wrong way to play chess as long as it follows the same general rules and both players agree. If you dislike Bullet chess then do not play it. No one is threating you with a gun to your head saying play bullet or take a bullet.