Rapid is better I learned 229 points worth of elo in a month
classical chess is for crippled old birds
Sort:
Apr 25, 2022
0
#23
CooloutAC wrote:
B1ZMARK wrote:
Basically, the learning path is like:
New concept -> study concept -> a couple slow games with concept -> blitz
Goes both ways bud. And the fact that classical is easier then blitz for beginners, just means most people will be better at classical in general by your own logic. Because as I just told the above poster this is a competitive sport. Nothing matters if not in relation to your opponent. Its about the competition and having competitive matches.
And really I don't even know why this is even questioned anymore, when we have all these online statistics and newcomers entering the game in this day and age and learning how to play online. When the competition is probably harder then it ever was in the past.
Of course, by my logic people will get better at classical, but it doesn't mean they can't get better at blitz either. I am saying that you can use classical as a tool to help you integrate what you learn easier, and therefore when you play blitz, you can play it out faster.
Thus, improving your blitz game.
"He who analyses blitz is stupid." – Rashid Nezhmetdinov.
Well, I mean, I can see your logic. Playing blitz will make you better at blitz. But playing classical can also make you better at blitz, and I’d argue it does it better, since it helps you get better at chess in general, and not just blitz.
Blitz and classical have two different skillsets, one of which includes moving pieces aimlessly with 2 seconds on the clock. Building those habits will help you get better at that aspect of blitz, but it will actively harm other parts of your skillset, giving you improvement, but rather slowly. The same can be said for rapid, and all the 10 minute games I play, as well.
Well, I mean, no one can learn how to play chess off speed chess alone. I learned how the pieces moved when I was 8 or 9, then, decided to pick the game up about a year ago. I exclusively played speed chess (I’m pretty sure USCF considers 10m chess blitz) and watched YouTube videos, and progressed naturally to get to where I am. Though I must admit, I am having doubts that I’m going to get any better if I keep “learning” chess that way.
No one said one is better than the other. (except for #1 and #2 but they were obviously trolls)
We’re just having a conversation, no?
I throughly disagree with the OP.
Apr 25, 2022
0
#29
JustinTime132 wrote:
Hey everyone, let's keep it civil in here please
"crippled old birds" does not invite civility.
Apr 25, 2022
0
#30
CooloutAC wrote:
NervesofButter wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
NervesofButter wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
NervesofButter wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
llama51 wrote:
chesschainmaster wrote:
Blitz and bullet is the best. With the short time controls, you have to play at your potential, and you learn more.
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.
To quote Levon Aronian "In blitz it is not always about making the "correct" move, it is about posing the hardest questions to your opponent"
And to quote Hikaru Nakamura "Don't dwell on the amount of blunders you make in bullet, relish in the fact you win more by making less blunders then your opponent"
I personally feel if you want to get better at classical play more classical, if you want to get better at speed chess play more speed chess. The different time controls require different strategies and approaches imo.
But as I said as a complete beginner I feel the slower the time control, the easier it is to learn the game. But its not necessary if one just analyzes all their games and doesn't get frustrated by losing more games playing speed chess.
I think the point is this. No one learned chess by playing speed chess.
I did. Most people have in modern times. Speed chess and practice exercises. Not only did I learn by playing speedchess. If it wasn't for speedchess I would not have even got interested in chess. After seeing the show queens gambit on netflix, I started watching streamers on twitch like Hikaru or Botez sisters, then I watched clubs stream on youtube like Coffee Chess from LA or CFN Channel from Moscow. And then I bought a beginner book and went on to chess.com to learn playing 5 min blitz.
So the person that taught you how to play chess set up the bard and pieces and you both started playing speed chess? How did you learn how the pieces move?
online of course. I learned about 6 months ago. did practice exercises and the beginner lessons, which now that I just resubscribed I will start doing again. and started playing 5 min games. I almost quit at first because I was literally stuck at rating 100 for a week and people on the forums thought I was trolling. lol
And that is what i mean by "learning how to play chess." That is why i said NO ONE learned to play chess by playing speed chess.
No my friend. You implied people learned how to play chess by playing classical. Which I will be as bold as to say, is not true for most of the people on this website.
Consider the average rating on this website and tell me why what is true for "most" is in any way to be applauded.
Apr 25, 2022
0
#31
chesschainmaster wrote:
Blitz and bullet is the best. With the short time controls, you have to play at your potential, and you learn more.
I've played over 100,000 blitz games in the past 25 years. None of them have been "at my potential". My correspondence games and over-the-board games, on the other hand, have brought out my best.
Blitz is fun, but is more a break from work than pursuit of good chess. My best moments playing blitz are executing checkmate in 15-20 moves with less than ten seconds remaining on the clock.
Li passa a algú, que es fa avorrit que la majoria de jugadors als tres moviments ja fan enroque i a defensar. Primer m'agradava ara és monòton i avorrit.
Apr 25, 2022
0
#33
CooloutAC wrote:
I did. Most people have in modern times. Speed chess and practice exercises. Not only did I learn by playing speedchess. If it wasn't for speedchess I would not have even got interested in chess.
I am the same as Coolout, I got introduced to chess through online blitz. Online blitz and bullet is what I enjoy, it is all I play nowadays and all I ever intend to play.
In the past I would have disagreed with coolout here, but I think he is slowly winning me over.
In my opinion the old days of "never play blitz, don't study openings, slowly work through chess books with a real board, meticulously analyse your classical games with a pencil and paper" are over.
kids these days are getting better by playing thousands of blitz and bullet games online, then relaxing by watching chess on youtube, solving puzzles for hours, drilling openings all day on chessable, doing puzzle rush etc. IMO this is how you improve in 2022
not only do I think that classical chess is on it's way out, but I truly belive that it is possible to become one of the best online blitz and bullet players in the world with no classical chess whatsoever.
I think in the next 5-10 years we will start seeing more and more young players - products of the online chess generation who are getting online ratings of 3000 and above, without ever setting foot in a classical tournament.
I mean, has anyone ever learned how to play chess through classical?
Apr 25, 2022
0
#35
Coaches say play long games, 600 rated trolls say that advice is outdated.
Tough call.
Apr 25, 2022
0
#36
If you took more than half an hour to play your first game yeah it’s classical XD
And the title is rather insulting given the huge amount of people who play classical, myself included. No one has learned how to play chess with a clock rapidly ticking down right next to them during their first game, most probably did it on a board with a friend teaching or through online tutorials, and practicing with something that sounds reasonable to someone new to chess. When I play blitz I always end up in some wacky situations which you wouldn’t quite get, like being up a whole queen! But down to one second on the clock and no time to take all your opponents remaining pieces. Is that really skill? Your full potential, losing a queen up?! Your full potential is what you can do with a long period of time and make the absolute best possible moves your able to, not trying to flag or taking a piece hoping your opponent pre moved something else. While it’s fun it isn’t bringing your best self on the chess board. There’s my $0.02 CAD on the subject
Apr 25, 2022
0
#37
I find classical very hard to play, as it demands absolute focus to play well. Generally I get bored and start wandering the hall, which normally results in bad results.
Rapid is a happy medium for me. With all that being said, I feel I learn the most about the game of chess through playing classical. I played blitz a lot around the 1500 level, and saw literally no improvement. I focused on rapid, and it was almost overnight when my blitz rating rose to 1800.
Apr 25, 2022
0
#38
CooloutAC wrote:
Matter of fact who is that famous little chinese boy who is highly rated in FIDE tourneys, Maybe Steven Donoghue knows the name.
Christopher Yoo
Apr 25, 2022
0
#39
CooloutAC wrote:
llama51 wrote:
Coaches say play long games, 600 rated trolls say that advice is outdated.
Tough call.
coaches? outdated coaches? Matter of fact who is that famous little chinese boy who is highly rated in FIDE tourneys, man i'm drawing a blank on his name. Someone had mentioned him in a debate about whether puzzles are helpful. Maybe Steven Donoghue knows the name. I believe his father once posted online that part of his training regiment was doing puzzle rush and speed chess games for his classical tourneys. But imo why even play classical chess if you have no interest in it? To play "good" chess at your "highest" potential as ziryab claims, even though people have different definitions as to what that even means?
Why does any of that matter?
Coaches say to play long games and you disagree without a good reason.
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.
Not necessarily. if you read my Levon Aronian quote. You are assuming everyone is aspiring to get good at classical, which is a silly assumption especially on chess.com.
I think the idea is that being better at classical translates to better at blitz. I think it's true about 50% of the time. There are concepts that you simply don't have the time to implement very well when you play blitz, and after a few slow games with that idea, you end up being able to blitz it out pretty well.
Basically, the learning path is like:
New concept -> study concept -> a couple slow games with concept -> blitz