what do you think requires more skills?

longer games or around 1 minute games. i think longer but thats just me

I would say 1 minute games, because I sure can't do them =(.

longer games do.more deep thinking and no excusses

timer victories are cheap in blitz.

Long games require more skills.

Long games require more skills as you really have to plan our your moves and have a tactic that will really give you an edge. If you don't plan ahead in long games, it can really bring you to your defeat. So in my opinion, long games are much harder as it requires a lot of in depth thinking. Short games and bullet chess you can trade off all your minor pieces except one or two and then dance around the board trying to run each others clocks out.

Long games. Because you have to be genuinely good at chess and not just good at running out the clock. 

so we all agree long games lol

I too will say long games, because it is no longer okay to play second rate moves. In long games, a slight advantage will go much further.

not more or less.. different skills. Do we feel like a sprinter is any less skillful than a marathon runner?

 Playing chess is not analogous to running competitively. They are vastly different actions which require vastly different sets of skills.

Chess is exactly like competitive running. When I'm playing, I like to fasten a number to my chest, so people know I'm registered. Then I get in the blocks and wait for the gun to go off, which sometimes takes a while cause at most tournaments firearms are against the rules. When I get deep into a strenuous endgame, I like to go past the Gatorade table and grab a quick cup of refreshment, so I can finish strong. Oh yeah, next time you quote-grab me, make sure your argument makes sense. The IDEA of slow chess being more skillful than quick chess IS similar to comparing sprinting to marathon running. They are both different disciplines within the same sport/activity, so one cannot disregard the validity of the other.

different skills for each - i like longer games - more cerebral. Shorter games more automatic.

They arent the same.... huuuu.

Chess and running is two different things; thinking/brain activity are different from muscle develeopment; willpower; body genetics...

You could say that they're similar; but they really aren't. In a metaphorical sense; not in a ''real'' sense - long distance running and sprinting are measured in exercise; muscles develeop in different fashion. They arent exactly the same; and you then come talking about similarities?

Good damn; could you be less euphemising; and more concise?

I don't think that arguments can be thrown without full understanding and clarity of what quick and long chess represent.

That both are different;  but at the same time use similar skills; similar ideas; patterns. But in a less and more complex way. I think that; quick chess in a way is more effective in develeoping your intuition; principles, ideas are more easily practiced; but not as easily mastered.

   Pattern; more learnable and applied; you're more likely to become aware of small misses because whole games depends on it. You could argue; but I won't. The important think is ones own thought process behind it all; I think understanding of the difference will develeop with time; I will not say anything.

A mix of both could be more effective than focus on one;

I don't have any more time.

Long games require more chess skill--i.e. the quality of the moves matters more.

Looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong

Well some one had to do it

Since more time to think equates to a harder game, I would say longer games.

ADK

Longer ones, since you think more.

I hope?

What I was saying was that there are fields that have different styles within a discipline. Is chess the same as running.... of course not. Chess is like chess, running is like running. The point to my idea is that there are different ways to play chess, just as there are different ways to run, that both use different skill sets. You cannot say that a Blitz player is any less skillful than a Slow player because they are different disciplines within chess! You're not going to understand this, but I'm going to say it anyway.... Blitz is Blitz, Slow play is Slow play. A marathon runner may make a terrible sprinter, and a sprinter may be the worst marathoner in the world, but that does not take away from their skill. They are skillful in their specific discipline within a certain field. There is not really an answer to the question posed on this forum. Skill is a supremely vague term. Perhaps a question like "Who plays more accurate moves, Blitz or Slow players?" would get an answer. The 'skill', whatever that may pertain to, is going to be different in two different types of chess because they are two different types of chess!

depends on your definition of skill.  Blitz is reflexes, and long is just deep thinking.  Both take skill, just different types.

Elbeasto!!!! Thank you. At least someone around here knows what I'm talking about!

btw, love your avatar. for some reason it just cracks me up.