I would suggest that if you want to improve your chess, start playing the longer games. You can keep on blitzing, but play the longer games to learn something. Because to be honest, 500 is pretty lousy. You would probably have a much higher rating if you'd play some 'normal' games.
Win by Timeout
Sort:
Btw, I've checked your stats, 9 wins and 30 losses isn't what I would call a winning-strike ;) Just saying.
Thanks WIlber, I'll start playing 10 minute games and see how that goes.
Well, that would be a bit better, but how about the occasional 30 minute game. Or maybe a 'online' game where you can think for a day. If you want, we can start such a game, unrated. I'm not a very good player, but I can teach you the basics. Get you up to around 1200.
That's quite a kind jesture; I'd be happy to learn whatever I can. If you are in the Netherlands, my time online might be a bit of a problem since I'm usually on between 6:30PM and 9PM East Coast US time.
No problem, we can do a game of 'online chess' where you can do 1 move every day. We won't have to be online on the same moments. It has a nice chatfunction so we still can communicate. I'll send you an invite right now.
The invite is out, you should be playing white, it's an unrated takeback game, so we can play a bit and then go back to a previous position.
I began a 10 min game and felt I was on top and still 6 mins left I lost by time out? how does that work?
May 4, 2019
0
#10
Wilbert_78 wrote:
I would suggest that if you want to improve your chess, start playing the longer games. You can keep on blitzing, but play the longer games to learn something. Because to be honest, 500 is pretty lousy. You would probably have a much higher rating if you'd play some 'normal' games.
1006 isn't so hot either pal.
fried_liver-attack wrote:
You actually went and looked up a guy's stats from a five year old post, then returned to add nothing much to the discussion?
Wilbert_78 wrote:
I would suggest that if you want to improve your chess, start playing the longer games. You can keep on blitzing, but play the longer games to learn something. Because to be honest, 500 is pretty lousy. You would probably have a much higher rating if you'd play some 'normal' games.
1006 isn't so hot either pal.
May 4, 2019
0
#12
jjupiter6 wrote:
fried_liver-attack wrote:
You actually went and looked up a guy's stats from a five year old post, then returned to add nothing much to the discussion?
Wilbert_78 wrote:
I would suggest that if you want to improve your chess, start playing the longer games. You can keep on blitzing, but play the longer games to learn something. Because to be honest, 500 is pretty lousy. You would probably have a much higher rating if you'd play some 'normal' games.
1006 isn't so hot either pal.
I don't look at the dates. This guy was being critical while being in no position too be.
I have recently been on a winning streak in 5 minute chess, but almost all these games I won because the other person ran out of time (I usually had 45 seconds left). About 3/4ths of the games were against rank 800 (I am rank 500). I want to find faster opponents because when I become more skilled, it will be almost impossible to win on timeouts. On a side note, I have a weird feeling that if I continue winning mostly on timeout that I will form my strategy more around the time rather than actual good moves; is this a rational concern or just nonsense?