classical chess is for crippled old birds

Blitz and bullet is the best. With the short time controls, you have to play at your potential, and you learn more.

     Au contraire. All the top blitz players are GMs who learned chess by playing hundreds of classical games over many years. Name even one top blitz player who "learned more" by playing only blitz. And all the best quality games come from classical tournaments.

Rapid chess generally lets a player think for longer and find more accurate moves than other chess modes. In Blitz/Bullet chess, the players typically end up running around in a panic at the end, pre-moving every move, simply trying to time out the other player before they time out themselves. Also, many more blunders and missed wins are made in these two game modes, because the players don't have time to think any moves through properly or see the opponent's blunders and capitalize on them. This is still present in Rapid games, even 30-minute games (I even played one of those games myself), but not nearly to the same degree as Blitz/Bullet games. Also, chess wasn't a computer game originally. It was invented centuries ago, and later got ported onto computers to play against people as a sort of gimmick. Computers now have mastered the game, but originally could only play so well. Humans used to win against them all the time. Chess can still be played over-the-board, as well.

Dear @because_checkmate

The first blitz tournament ever (a grandmaster event) took place in 1970. The first official FIDE blitz championship took place in 2006. According to your logic, all the players before 1970 (including world champions from Steinitz to Fischer) are pathetic - If you think so, then you're clearly out of your mind ("trolling" is the chess.com term).

Also if we ignore the first 10 (opening) moves, any decision taken in 10 minutes would be significantly much much better than a decision taken in under a minute (it's common sense), so your "The deluded, slow thinking, stare-at-the-board players who imagine they are really "deep" even though they end up making the same move a bullet player makes in 2 seconds" is a pointless statement.

Lastly, you said that chess without time is just a computer program. Is football without the 90 min barrier a computer program? And all this is while completely denying that 30 mins is not a time restriction at all. 

And mind you, this is coming from someone whose all time high rating yet is most in blitz (2500<). Get your sh!t together.

The op in these kinds of posts are obviously trolls, but what's sad and alarming at the same time are those that go along blindly taking the op seriously, thinking that it's somehow quite profound.

A fool's comment. I only started playing serious OTB chess a little under a year ago, despite playing online for over 10 years....I can say in all seriousness that only OTB chess is real, everything else is just child's play.

Hey everyone, let's keep it civil in here please

comparable or even better quality games come from daily & correspondence chess, which are even slower time controls:

the more time you have to think, the deeper your thoughts are allowed to become, which permits you to consider unexpected plans & contrast your options more exactly...

if you want a turn-based 'fight' then go watch fake wrestling or blitz out endless hyper-bullet;

if you want to improve your skills in a strategic game of war then study your moves.     🙂

I'd say classical chess is harder. You rely on the strength of your moves, alone.

The clock is not going to save you, if you make a poor move. Chances are, you'll suffer the rest of the game, for it.

And your opponent isn't going to fall for your cheapos, either - because he has a lot of time to sit and squint at your moves, until he finds the best possible response.

Speed chess is thrilling, and challenging in its own ways. But it's more about who can play faster, and who can blunder less. Classical chess is more about seeing who the stronger player is.

blitz is a bit more doable but bullet, it is simply based on premoves which you can't actually do on the board. it's fictional.. an imaginary thing.

blitz is mostly based on time management, traps and other tricky things.. still it is 50-50 chess imo. but blitz players are also %50 chess players according to this.

two names come to mind at master levels. Magnus and Nakamura.. Naka is well known twitch/youtube speed chess entertainer (?) and is seen like #1 and still has no chance against Magnus on classic chess.

I remember on of my draws against an IM (who was also higher rated than me) in bullet... I was losing the entire game, but luckily he made the mistake of playing it like a "real" game and traded down into a 100% winning endgame.

This was a mistake because speed games are silly in that there's not enough time to win endgames that are 100% wins. He should have stayed in the middlegame where it would have been harder for me to premove shuffling around.

"Play to your potential?" Not really.

I don’t care what a troll thinks of how I spend my chess playing time. “If you don’t like the way I’m living, you just leave this long-haired country boy alone.” CDB 

Very true

lol haha

On the contrary, tons of people have. Speed chess is a very natural segway into learning chess for the average casual like me

More chances, yes, but for learning, not so much. Especially at lower levels. You simply don't have time to "apply" the strategies you learn, and when you do, you tend to forget a lot of other stuff you already "knew".

It is a way to get better, just not a very efficient way. If you enjoy the game that way, that's fine. But you don't learn more. 

You make a valid point: more games to analyze. That's where I feel like you need a balance. Games like bullet don't have a lot of "stuff" to analyze. I think rapid strikes the best balance between number of games and quality of thinking. 

I edited my post to address that lol

I feel like many beginners need the time to think about stuff. I work with a first grader who's around 300 USCF (I don't actually coach; his mom was my piano teacher, so I was basically repaying them). He takes a lot of time to think, and often even forgets the stuff I tell him right after. And if he can't even remember anything, without time constraints, there's no chance he can remember it in a speed chess game.

Ok, but if you play longer time controls, you are more likely to think out a move and less likely to make those mistakes in the first place. And isn’t making less mistakes good for your chess? More games doesn’t necessarily mean better analysis, because all you’re analyzing is stupid 1 move blunders you would have never made if you were playing classical.

not to say analyzing speed chess doesn’t have it’s benefits, but still, my point stands.

I’m assuming that everyone is aspiring to get good at chess in general. And less mistakes improves your general chess. You are more likely to make mistakes in speed chess than classical, for the reasons aforementioned. Therefore, classical is beneficial for your chess in general.