hsong1 wrote:
What? I don't get that joke.
Easy...peasy. It was a vituperative euphemism.
This is why I don't play chess
Sort:
BettorOffSingle wrote:
DamonevicSmithlov wrote:
Stop playing blitz. Well, at least play less of it. Two things will happen, you'll improve & be less annoyed with the game. The people I see on here that complain the most are the ones that play mainly blitz & bullet. It just so happens that the things they're complaining about are those speed games. I don't think I've ever seen someone complain on here about slow live games (turn based they do, about vacation time).
Where was it proven that blitz is worse for one's improvement than SLOW chess? In all areas of study of intellect, speed usually counts. Why not in chess? Are you saying a player who can play a near-perfect game in a minute is inferior to one who requires TWO HOURS?
Chessplayers trash biltz because most are too SLOW to play it properly.
Blitz players study positions for as long or longer than "slow" players; they just prefer a "shot clock" to keep the game moving.
Before you learn to speed read, you have to learn to read
Before you can become a race car driver you have to learn how to drive
Before you learn to be an auctioneer, you have to learn how to talk
I can go on with more, but you understand what im trying to say.
Aug 3, 2015
0
#24
Chess is chess, irrespective of the time control. The rules don't change. However long you have on the clock at the start you still lose if you manage your time incompetently. I lose on time regularly because I play 10 minute games at work while I eat my lunch. Then I figure I should maybe play a bit faster rather than sitting casually eating crisps as my clock ticks under a minute.
CynthiaMarcoux wrote:
Wait until you play high stakes poker or financial markets ;)
Points are a big problem. Personally, I don't care about my points but when I lose to a weak player, a lot of them will say that I don't deserve to be 2000. They react according to my rating. If I was 1600, they would find something else to whine about. As simple as that. People take it too seriously.
.
BettorOffSingle wrote:
DamonevicSmithlov wrote:
Stop playing blitz. Well, at least play less of it. Two things will happen, you'll improve & be less annoyed with the game. The people I see on here that complain the most are the ones that play mainly blitz & bullet. It just so happens that the things they're complaining about are those speed games. I don't think I've ever seen someone complain on here about slow live games (turn based they do, about vacation time).
Where was it proven that blitz is worse for one's improvement than SLOW chess? In all areas of study of intellect, speed usually counts. Why not in chess? Are you saying a player who can play a near-perfect game in a minute is inferior to one who requires TWO HOURS?
In the above, you are conflating being good at speed chess with speed chess helping you improve. That doesn't make sense. No one is saying good fast players aren't good. They are just saying it's much harder to get better at chess if you only play fast. The way to improve in almost any discipline is to learn slowly and correctly and gradually increase your pace. Slowing down and taking your time allows you to process all the details of your performance. Trying to go fast does not allow this, therefore, many details are overlooked or completely neglected.
Aug 3, 2015
0
#29
On the other hand you can play many many Blitz games in the same time as a single 45 minute game. The single long game may teach you almost nothing, whereas in the 10 Blitz games you might play in the same time you will see 10-times as many different positions.
Very few single games are so instructive that an average player will improve lots by studying it so carefully and never playing faster chess too.
Simplest option is just to mix in all kinds of chess, it's not difficult.
Why not 15.exf6,Qxd1 16.fxg7!,Qh5 17.gxf8=Q+,Kxf8 18.Bf4 (the Ra8 isn't going anywhere) 18...Nd7 19.Bxa8 with the bishop pair, two rooks, and knight vs. just queen and knight? Or you can simply run away with the piece with 15...Raxd1. Either way he's done but you could have had a far clearer game after some straightforward forced calculations. It isn't simply about obtaining a winning position but making everything crystal clear and greatly reducing the chances of swindles. I even won (from very poor sinking too) and drew by sacrificing a rook for a knight before because it's not a linear piece, is an excellent blockader, isn't obstructed by pawns, and causes time trouble problems because linear pieces are far more intuitive to work with and against.
Here's a win I'm not that proud of. Granted, it was only 15 minutes per side, but I still allowed the opponent too much leeway while Bc4?! seems dubious in hindsight (I'm not familiar with the 2...Qd8 Scandinavian) but wanted to use the threat of a d5 advance to restrict black's options.
glamdring27 wrote:
On the other hand you can play many many Blitz games in the same time as a single 45 minute game. The single long game may teach you almost nothing, whereas in the 10 Blitz games you might play in the same time you will see 10-times as many different positions.
Very few single games are so instructive that an average player will improve lots by studying it so carefully and never playing faster chess too.
Simplest option is just to mix in all kinds of chess, it's not difficult.
So many such games are concentrated in game collections like Chess Praxis, Alekhine's Best Games, New York 1924, Zurich 1953, and Botvinnik's Best Games collection (the three volume set.)
glamdring27 wrote:
On the other hand you can play many many Blitz games in the same time as a single 45 minute game. The single long game may teach you almost nothing, whereas in the 10 Blitz games you might play in the same time you will see 10-times as many different positions.
Very few single games are so instructive that an average player will improve lots by studying it so carefully and never playing faster chess too.
Simplest option is just to mix in all kinds of chess, it's not difficult.
I disagree with almost everything. A single long game will almost always teach you something, usually a ton. You have to pour a lot into it and take a lot of time afterwards to analyse it, but you will almost always learn a ton. In 10 blitz games, you will have no time to concentrate on your thought process, analyze variations deeply and concretely, visualize the positions at the ends of these variations and compare them positionally to evaluate each branch of your variation tree. You usually don't even have time to properly list the candidate moves you need to evaluate. If you don't do these things, you aren't practicing them and you won't improve them, and these are THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS IN CHESS. Seeing 10 times as many positions does no good if you don't treat those positions correctly. Just seeing a position is not helpful.
There is no problem with mixing in some blitz games for specific purposes (maybe familiarizing yourself with an opening or just for fun), but for serious learning, they are almost worthless for most players.
Aug 3, 2015
0
#33
Not all games of chess are interesting. Spending over an hour on a game that is ultimately boring and contains few tactics is only of use to the very small minority who are serious about becoming really good. Most people who play chess don't have the ability to become good enough for that level of analysis to matter much.
For some people more time to think about a single position is just more time to get confused and forget what you are visualising if you can't keep all the positions in your head. I'm sure that is something that improves with practice, but again that is for a very small minority of very dedicated people.
Nakamura seems to think that playing Blitz chess was very beneficial to him becoming a better chess player. Even in a long game you can't spend 10 minutes and more on every move, you have to play some moves relatively quicker to spend the time in the right places so Blitz chess can be of use of that I'm sure.
Yes, I'm aware that not everyone wants to get serious about improving. I was talking about for those that are. I wouldn't use Nakamura as an example of typical for a chess player, for the record. He is much more an exception. Almost every chess teacher and coach will tell you that blitz is mostly harmful to your development, especially when it takes the place of long games. They aren't just making this up.
DamonevicSmithlov wrote:
PossibleOatmeal wrote:
BettorOffSingle wrote:
DamonevicSmithlov wrote:
Stop playing blitz. Well, at least play less of it. Two things will happen, you'll improve & be less annoyed with the game. The people I see on here that complain the most are the ones that play mainly blitz & bullet. It just so happens that the things they're complaining about are those speed games. I don't think I've ever seen someone complain on here about slow live games (turn based they do, about vacation time).
Where was it proven that blitz is worse for one's improvement than SLOW chess? In all areas of study of intellect, speed usually counts. Why not in chess? Are you saying a player who can play a near-perfect game in a minute is inferior to one who requires TWO HOURS?
In the above, you are conflating being good at speed chess with speed chess helping you improve. That doesn't make sense. No one is saying good fast players aren't good. They are just saying it's much harder to get better at chess if you only play fast. The way to improve in almost any discipline is to learn slowly and correctly and gradually increase your pace. Slowing down and taking your time allows you to process all the details of your performance. Trying to go fast does not allow this, therefore, many details are overlooked or completely neglected.
Possible Oatmeal (creative name)
PossibleOatmeal was just the funniest (and I laughed pretty hard at it) of the many randomly generated names I went through at chesskid.com. Not so creative, really :)
Apparently, it just takes a random adjective and glues it to a random noun. You can just keep generating new ones until you get one you like.
A couple of quality ones in this page I just generated for old time's sake. :)
MysticRaven a écrit :
CynthiaMarcoux wrote:
Points are a big problem. Personally, I don't care about my points but when I lose to a weak player, a lot of them will say that I don't deserve to be 2000. They react according to my rating. If I was 1600, they would find something else to whine about. As simple as that. People take it too seriously.
Wait until you play high stakes poker or financial markets ;)
Ha! Ha! :D
Aug 4, 2015
0
#37
You couldn't pay me to play chess. It's for weenie boys who don't get out very often.
I agree, it's stupid to lose because your hands/mouse can't move fast enough, chess should be about the moves.
But if you CHOOSE to play 3 I 0 you can hardly complain when you lose on time!
Harvey_Wallbanger wrote:
You couldn't pay me to play chess. It's for weenie boys who don't get out very often.
As opposed to the real men who spend their time discussing them on internet forums! 
http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=1231448846
Whatever time setting you put, chess players will work to swindle you. No honor.
That was my hard earned 10 points in 10 minutes of work and energy. Guy was crushed from beginning to end, and has the dignity to take the win. (we were both short on time).
When you get games like this once every 10-15 games it takes a toll on you for putting in that much effort and not to get rewarded, when you yourself play a clean game without doing stuff like that. Virtually I should be 150-200 rating points higher if I played ... like whatever that is, but I won't be a better player for it. It's pointless.
I don't play like that and I never have. If you look at my games history maybe I have a dozen games where I have more substantially less material when winning out of my entire games history (I've never accepted wins like this, but many players do) Probably only a few dozen where I win on time with less material, because I'm usually down on time, and trying to make the best moves (not shuffling)
Just like on OTB play, the clock is part of the game.