22107 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
most of the 1 min games i have played / observed seem to be won on time not by the better player but by the player who moves fastest am i wrong or right let me know what you think.
Time is the most important thing in 1 minute chess, yes. However the ratings aren't meaningless. I've won games on time in 1 minute chess where I am clearly behind on the board, and sometimes my opponent may complain, but if the roles were reversed, and I had their position with only 20 seconds left, I would have won easily.
So it's about the defensive and offensive patterns you have memorized. My immediate impression of a setup that offers resistance was stronger than their immediate impression of how to convert their advantage (or their lack of impression, if they're reduced to shuffling pieces around).
But to answer the question in your title, it's fun because you don't think :) The sequence that immediately pops in your head (from years of experience you just have these series of moves as ideas) you don't have to check, or think of something better, you can just try it out. Esp. when it's aggressive. In a real game you may never go for this aggressive sequence, but it's a 1 minute game, it's not a serious investment in time or energy, just go for it and see what happens!
Waffle's completely right, which is why many players consider rapid time control games to be a variant from standard chess. While I do not care either way, I find their view understandable because the clock was not initially a condition for a win, added primarily to prevent players from stalling a game indefinitely.
teaches how to find the best move, quick and easy. need to know opening and closing, add me ill play u
When I first joined chess.com under another nickname, one member made me play 1 minute games and told me the mistakes I made unconsciously (both in standard and 1 minute time) everytime.
I guess it can be useful if you know someone willing to do that everyday,you repeat the mistake in 1 minute games and they tell you it's wrong, so you end up not doing it in standard or 1 minute games anymore. You learn watching yourself, doing the mistake and being told about it faster, so next you think about not doing it...
1 min chess is too fast unless you are superhuman, i dont play it because the games arent decided by good chess (most of the time), so i play 5 min. It gives time for good moves, and isnt too long, so the opponent stalls, or you are bored by the game
The issue with that is that most of the mistakes made in 1 min games are those that are caused by the time pressure, not by faulty thought process. It's always good to review your own games for mistakes, but you should be looking over games with standard time controls or longer, certainly not bullet games.
Actually, i find that people play faulty moves because of that, AND they are pressured by the threat of time trouble. They feel you can play almost anything, and win by the clock.
To the people that think it's just random shuffling of pieces, I thought of a good comparison I think.
Maybe a good comparison is when someone is learning touch typing. At first, you look at one letter at a time, and try to remember where it is on the keyboard.
As you get better, less and less time/effort is needed to find that key, it's almost automatic.
If you keep practicing, you can start to look at whole words, and the fingers are typing sets of letters (words) at a time. The individual letters are found unconsciously, and you can spend your conscious thought on reading as you type... and yes you're reading and typing at the same time!
Those that feel 1 minute chess is a bunch of random moves can't imagine evaluating a position so quickly. For them, after each move, you have to struggle to find all the threats... is he attacking something? Can I take his piece for free? Is there a tactic? But after a lot of practice you can do these basic assessments unconsciously... attacked squares are simply self evident... and you're using your conscious thought on the big picture... assessing what's happening positionally, or what needs to be done in the future. You're noticing the basic threats and actually playing chess (planning for future tactics / endgames / etc) at the same time... much like touch typing finds individual letters automatically, while you read.
Hope that example helps, I think it's a relatively good illustration. Probably an even better one is site reading in music. This is a better example because site reading would probably be a lot of fun for the melodies you produce while your fingers automatically hit notes. In chess it's exciting because of the patterns/strategy you produce, while your mind automatically avoids basic blunders.
Good comparison. "After a lot of practice you can do basic assessments unconsciously". Exactly why it's good to play bullet, many people fail to understand that.
Yes, #335394862 brings up a valid distinction. If indeed 1 minute chess is a chess variant, why not keep score and rating a bit differently? Like instead of a standard win-loss-draw count, keep statistics on 1. win by checkmage, 2. win by time, 3. loss by checkmate, 4. loss by time, and 5. draw. Resignations would count as checkmate for obvious reasons. Maybe create a modified rating system where wins by checkmate will boost your discrete "1 minute" rating higher than a win on time.
Also, is anyone still interested in under one minute games? I think it would be cool to try a thirty second game, or even less time than that.
thanks guy's all great answer's ,I like the idea johnmusacha put about the scoring i think it would be a much fairer way to score these game's. cant say i am enjoying playing 1 min game's given that i am losing a lot more than i win but think that in the long run as most of you have said it can be beneficial to your over all game.
IMHO they are a waste of time for real chess players....chess is an art..a science......noughts and crosses was designed for 1 minute chessers ;-)
To quote Tasmyn Archer:
"I wonder why..."
i have given up on them now only play live 3o min' tournament and online normal games in other word's 1 min games are just meaning less and dont help you improve as a chess player
I concur Walt......30 minute matches are more realistic....but i find them tough....i like to think about movee .. days if necessary...so i make the right move ..
i am looking to become a better chess player not to win meaningless victory's on time
why people love Ruy Lopez?
by pfren 2 minutes ago
Is chess a sport? Ending the debate
by Bilbo21 5 minutes ago
by Bilbo21 6 minutes ago
Tactics Rating Not Visible After First Attempt
by Bilbo21 7 minutes ago
New Version Feedback
by Another-Life 10 minutes ago
FREE 20-player Online "MK Simul" :)
by Pulpofeira 19 minutes ago
Lessons - Retaking a completed lesson?
by baddogno 27 minutes ago
Play the Trump Gambit
by Samurai-X 28 minutes ago
by hkp08 28 minutes ago
Calculatio is the most important skill
by Ziggy_Zugzwang 34 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
Try the new Chess.com!
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!