Blitz develops intuition and opening familiarity faster than slower time control chess just because of a larger volume of games at a faster pace. Most other things would probably tend to improve with slower chess.
I do not think there is any evidence for this assertion.
You might believe it. It might seem to be true for you. That does not make it true. One problem with the Internet is the huge amount of opinion presented as if it were fact.
Blitz develops intuition and opening familiarity faster than slower time control chess just because of a larger volume of games at a faster pace. Most other things would probably tend to improve with slower chess.
I do not think there is any evidence for this assertion.
You might believe it. It might seem to be true for you. That does not make it true. One problem with the Internet is the huge amount of opinion presented as if it were fact.
I am not sure how incontrovertible proof could be provided for such a statement, but I didn't come up with the idea myself. It is a fairly common viewpoint but from my memory I think FM Todd Andrews said blitz was useful for learning a new opening in one of his video lectures on this site and dzindzi said he sometimes prescribed blitz for chess players I am thinking for similar reasons. It is entirely logical that playing an opening 10 times and trying to remember how different opening moves influenced the game would help familiarize someone with an opening faster than 1 game with classical time controls. As you suggested it did work for me for a few openings, although that wouldn't qualify as any definite proof.
Blitz develops intuition and opening familiarity faster than slower time control chess just because of a larger volume of games at a faster pace. Most other things would probably tend to improve with slower chess.
I do not think there is any evidence for this assertion.
You might believe it. It might seem to be true for you. That does not make it true. One problem with the Internet is the huge amount of opinion presented as if it were fact.
I am not sure how incontrovertible proof could be provided for such a statement, but I didn't come up with the idea myself. It is a fairly common viewpoint but from my memory I think FM Todd Andrews said blitz was useful for learning a new opening in one of his video lectures on this site and dzindzi said he sometimes prescribed blitz for chess players I am thinking for similar reasons. It is entirely logical that playing an opening 10 times and trying to remember how different opening moves influenced the game would help familiarize someone with an opening faster than 1 game with classical time controls. As you suggested it did work for me for a few openings, although that wouldn't qualify as any definite proof.
One issue is if you are learning a new opening, how would less time work out for you if you see a new variation you have never seen and need time to think about the proper move? Seems like a minefield of blunder imho.
Well it might not necessarily work for you if you don't like blitz and you can do fine without ever playing blitz. However the point is that you are likely to blunder, especially if the opening is sharp, and you will learn from your mistakes. If you have never really played blitz then of course it wouldn't do much. You would have to get used to the time control first and you might just make nonsensical moves rather than making any real effort to understand the position due to the time pressure. However if you are comfortable with shorter time controls and able to play logically during blitz games, then that ability can be put to use in some instances. This was how I learned to play the king's gambit recently. Obviously I lost a lot of games at first due to my lack of familiarity with the positions and their sharp nature, but I learned most of the key tactics and opening ideas that I saw after a few days or maybe a week of a large volume of blitz games. I think blitz can serve a specific purpose, but of course that is only my opinion as well.
Well it might not necessarily work for you if you don't like blitz and you can do fine without ever playing blitz. However the point is that you are likely to blunder, especially if the opening is sharp, and you will learn from your mistakes. If you have never really played blitz then of course it wouldn't do much. You would have to get used to the time control first and you might just make nonsensical moves rather than making any real effort to understand the position due to the time pressure. However if you are comfortable with shorter time controls and able to play logically during blitz games, then that ability can be put to use in some instances. This was how I learned to play the king's gambit recently. Obviously I lost a lot of games at first due to my lack of familiarity with the positions and their sharp nature, but I learned most of the key tactics and opening ideas that I saw after a few days or maybe a week of a large volume of blitz games. I think blitz can serve a specific purpose, but of course that is only my opinion as well.
I was not trying trying to say <b>I dont like blitz so everyone has to have the same opinion as me.</b> I just said that I don't think that argument was very sound. This makes a bit more sense to me. Its basically like ranked anxiety. In most games people freak out over their rating so they avoid ranked or lose a lot because they cannot get over the added pressure. I might try blitz in a minute. I am learning the Queens Gambit.
Blitz develops intuition and opening familiarity faster than slower time control chess just because of a larger volume of games at a faster pace. Most other things would probably tend to improve with slower chess.
I do not think there is any evidence for this assertion.
You might believe it. It might seem to be true for you. That does not make it true. One problem with the Internet is the huge amount of opinion presented as if it were fact.
I am not sure how incontrovertible proof could be provided for such a statement, but I didn't come up with the idea myself. It is a fairly common viewpoint but from my memory I think FM Todd Andrews said blitz was useful for learning a new opening in one of his video lectures on this site and dzindzi said he sometimes prescribed blitz for chess players I am thinking for similar reasons. It is entirely logical that playing an opening 10 times and trying to remember how different opening moves influenced the game would help familiarize someone with an opening faster than 1 game with classical time controls. As you suggested it did work for me for a few openings, although that wouldn't qualify as any definite proof.
One issue is if you are learning a new opening, how would less time work out for you if you see a new variation you have never seen and need time to think about the proper move? Seems like a minefield of blunder imho.>>>>>>
I don't see how anyone could object to <<Blitz develops intuition and opening familiarity faster than slower time control chess IN SOME PEOPLE, AT LEAST SOME OF THE TIME just because of a larger volume of games at a faster pace.>> Therefore, if it develops it in some people, it's incontroversial that it develops it: therefore the statement <<Blitz develops intuition and opening familiarity faster than slower time control chess just because of a larger volume of games at a faster pace>> should be regarded as factually correct and it only becomes controversial if words like "in all people at all times" are added.
Then few things are true in life!!!
The bleach box said everyone would die by drinking it. AND I DID.
I survived, they are liers, Im gonna SUE THEM!
Blitz develops intuition and opening familiarity faster than slower time control chess just because of a larger volume of games at a faster pace. Most other things would probably tend to improve with slower chess.
I do not think there is any evidence for this assertion.
You might believe it. It might seem to be true for you. That does not make it true. One problem with the Internet is the huge amount of opinion presented as if it were fact.
I am not sure how incontrovertible proof could be provided for such a statement, but I didn't come up with the idea myself. It is a fairly common viewpoint but from my memory I think FM Todd Andrews said blitz was useful for learning a new opening in one of his video lectures on this site and dzindzi said he sometimes prescribed blitz for chess players I am thinking for similar reasons. It is entirely logical that playing an opening 10 times and trying to remember how different opening moves influenced the game would help familiarize someone with an opening faster than 1 game with classical time controls. As you suggested it did work for me for a few openings, although that wouldn't qualify as any definite proof.
One issue is if you are learning a new opening, how would less time work out for you if you see a new variation you have never seen and need time to think about the proper move? Seems like a minefield of blunder imho.>>>>>>
I don't see how anyone could object to <<Blitz develops intuition and opening familiarity faster than slower time control chess IN SOME PEOPLE, AT LEAST SOME OF THE TIME just because of a larger volume of games at a faster pace.>> Therefore, if it develops it in some people, it's incontroversial that it develops it: therefore the statement <<Blitz develops intuition and opening familiarity faster than slower time control chess just because of a larger volume of games at a faster pace>> should be regarded as factually correct and it only becomes controversial if words like "in all people at all times" are added.
The main issue was you didn't provide evidence or explain. You just threw out a blanket statement to a very new player. I have played a lot of competitive online games and I have learn from that is, even if someone is higher rated than you does not mean they know what they are talking about. I've had advice from gold and plat players in sc2 and lol that was complete and absolute bs. So you can understand the skepticism. Someone else argued your point with a good theory that I was willing to accept. It is not what you said it is how you said it.
Then few things are true in life!!!
The bleach box said everyone would die by drinking it. AND I DID.
I survived, they are liers, Im gonna SUE THEM!
Are u 1a those ppl who are addicted to eating cleansing agents ?....if so ?....I think that's totally cool !
I know people have a dislike for logic but I did demonstrate that the statement is a matter of opinion only and doesn't necessarily apply to all people, all of the time (although I think it probably does) and therefore it's a correct statement that doesn't need proof. Anyway, at least it's intuitively correct and according to the statement, blitz chess develops intuition. Q.E.D. 
Blitz develops intuition and opening familiarity faster than slower time control chess just because of a larger volume of games at a faster pace. Most other things would probably tend to improve with slower chess.