study plan for blitz

can anyone tell me a good study plan for 5 min Blitz?

Read somewhere that if you analyze each game, first by yourself and then with a computer, you'll make progress.  Also if you figure out where you left book and learn one more move of theory in each game.  Maybe it was something on ChessTV....Or maybe I just imagined the whole thing...

With your 600 blitz rating, all you need to do is to try to figure out if your opponent's last move had a point. If he attacks one of your pieces, is it defended? If not, can you defend it or should you move it? If you think about that before looking at the things your pieces can do or threaten to do, you will improve swiftly. It is entirely possible his move had no particular point, but you need to think about it.

Assuming you know the point values of pieces and can take that into account too. Hope you know basics like developing pieces, castling, etc.

I looked at one of your last losses and you did great for a while and then you stopped paying attention to what he was doing and quickly lost.

Become good at slow chess.

thanks that is great advice......I know my blitz rating is low on this site, i haven't played that many blitz games. my other ratings are significantly higher

That would probably take him 5 years...

Just play fast and watch stronger players.

What if i just want to play blitz?

What if  i want the thrill of fast chess....regardless of my ability!

90% of people who play online play blitz.

Weather we like it or not......the future of chess will be faster time controls.

The best strategy for becoming good at blitz is to play slow games. 

If you only want to improve in blitz and you don't want to play slow games then just play endless blitz and maybe do some tactical exercises.

Nothing wrong with that. I'm a Blitz-addict myself.

The problem though is that playing Blitz is - even more than slow chess -  heavily based on pattern recognition. And you won't memorize much patterns by looking 15 seconds at critical positions or a rook endgame but by looking 15 minutes at it, trying to solve problems and figuring out afterwards where you went wrong. Of course you could also play blitz games and analyse them afterwards, but just playing one blitz game after another won't teach you much.

But then again, there is no prize for being good at blitz chess. So if you enjoy it ...

PS. Doing tactics is also very useful.

The thing is.. when you get addicted to slow chess - you might not want and better stay at slow chess.(its even harder to transform blitz into slow chess)  Not only that.. getting good at slow chess does not automatically transform good at blitz.. many masters and strong players have low blitz elo and are bad overall at blitz.

So the question for you is - if you want long-term improvement go slow chess - if you want instant to make wins and improve some degree - play blitz. No formula - play a lot, analyze lost games, see where you get wrong, observe better players, practice tactics and move fast. That's it.

10/0 is a bad time control. It gives you the illusiion you are playing rapid game (while actually is a blitz) and not onlly that.. at middle/endgame of the game you are playing a bullet game.

Play 10/5  for blitz.

 Your game will improve a lot.

You don't study for blitz lol.

yea i started with bullet/blitz and quickly made it to average level - i was never sub 1000 - the videos/stream of people playing bullet and the frustration is what improved my game haha. Hutch anyone ? DrillzGambit great youtuber it was great time and CN.

Yeah, but those type of players don't usually play speed games at all.

The IMs and GMs that DO play often (and aren't really old, no offense) are monsters at blitz. They can pull off crazy tournament-like stuff like sacrificing material purely for positional reasons, then they crush you in a technical endgame while moving 1 move per second.

The weaker players who specialize in only speed games can't do anything like this. They have to rely on tricks like seeing a lot of tactics, or knowing a solid system really well.

I don't fully agree. You dont have to be strong player at slow chess to create a beauty in blitz. I myself sometimes made positional sacs that are not unsound acordiding to engine or at least is hard for humans to find top moves in low time.  And often other way is true - strong GM's create absolutely trash at blitz or overlook simple tactic

Take a look at GM Simon Williams. We must say he is a beast in 3 min blitz - top at 2600+ and beating Nakamura in blitz game must be count as super strong blitz player right? Right. But is not completely true. Many times he plays very weak , completely lost in just 12 moves and position is resignable. And if he gets equal position (or worse, which often happens even vs way weaker players than him) with low time on clock (and blitz is all about the clock)... he is very slow and plays weak moves. I can easily flag him in equal endgame and time. It will not be my first time to flag a GM haha.

infact he can lose to 2000 rated player and he did in the past and if you ask him he will tell you he is crap a lot of times, but other his sacs are great. He makes incredible positional/theoritical gambits/sacs and count on own experience and confusion by his opponents to misplay openings, but that often dont work.

Thanks everyone for your input.......sadly, we seem to have gone off topic though. 

My Question was how to study Blitz......not weather i should be playing slower games.

If he's not able to play at the pace of 1 move per second in an equal (and not complicated) position, then he's a bad blitz player. That's my opinion. I don't care if his rating is 2600... if he knew how to move fast it would be higher... but I don't know much about him. I think I saw 1 game of his on youtube, that's it.

As for missing simple tactics, I've seen Nakamura do it too. Even hang pieces. I think sometimes they lose focus.

You study Blitz by playing and analysing slower games. :-)

Everyone seems to be eluding to my low rating ....I must apologise, I haven't being playing chess very long.