Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 30 Nov '11 18:02
    Why do people play those kinds of games? I just finished a game played at 2 minutes and had a totally winning position, but ran out of time.

    Do people really enjoy such short games that are won simply by the clock? Seems strange to me.
  2. 30 Nov '11 20:08 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Why do people play those kinds of games? I just finished a game played at 2 minutes and had a totally winning position, but ran out of time.

    Do people really enjoy such short games that are won simply by the clock? Seems strange to me.
    Your position isn't "totally winning" if you're down on time 😉
  3. 30 Nov '11 21:29
    I never play anything faster than 15 min per player because I feel the same way. I get soooo frustrated seeing my winning position fall apart with a single quick-think move. Some people love it though, I guess it's more exciting... Your attack is more likely to succeed. As Robbie stated in another thread, many games begin with one player just thrusting their g or h pawn forward to get at the enemy king.

    In of terms of chess improvement though, some people really swear by it, and there's probably something to it. Can't really give my opinion on that though.
  4. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    30 Nov '11 22:03 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Why do people play those kinds of games? I just finished a game played at 2 minutes and had a totally winning position, but ran out of time.

    Do people really enjoy such short games that are won simply by the clock? Seems strange to me.
    I think people play 2 minute for the adrenaline rush. It's a bit faster than I prefer. Unless you win a few games in spite of the clock, you probably won't understand the appeal.

    Also, short time controls give you the chance to beat stronger players. I've beaten an IM at 2 minute before. I'd probably never win in a million years against such a player at a slow time control.
  5. 30 Nov '11 22:20
    Games that fast are for tricksters.
  6. 01 Dec '11 00:24
    Originally posted by SmittyTime
    Games that fast are for tricksters.
    Amen - I love the stuff.

    Q
  7. Subscriber PureRWandB
    CCC Club Leader
    01 Dec '11 03:41
    I just played this 1 minute game and lost by time.
    Had I moved 1 second earlier, I would have checkmate.... with 24.Qxh7

    Granted: I am not the best chess player
    But chess players at any level could understand the level of frustration I had at the time.

  8. 01 Dec '11 14:49
    Originally posted by PureRWandB
    I just played this 1 minute game and lost by time.
    Had I moved 1 second earlier, I would have checkmate.... with 24.Qxh7

    [b]Granted: I am not the best chess player

    But chess players at any level could understand the level of frustration I had at the time.

    [pgn][Event "Live Chess"]
    [Site "Chess.com"]
    [Date "2011.11.30"]
    [White "pureredwhite ...[text shortened]... .Qe2 a6 19.Nxe5 Bf7 20.Nxf7 Qxf7
    21.Rae1 O-O 22.e5 Qe6 23.Qe4 c6 0-1[/pgn][/b]
    Losing on time used to bother me when I first started playing chess. I always wanted the rating points! It was at FICS.

    When I had a losing position and my opponent was low on time I'd just make a quick safe move to start his clock again. It felt cheap, but I wanted the points!

    Now points from one game don't mean anything, points come and go. The more you get, the faster they disappear, the lower you go the faster they come back. On RHP blitz there are no points at all!

    Now I just look at the board when time runs out I look at the board and adjudicate the win or loss for myself, I don't care who runs out of time. That's the way I look at it.

    I just don't understand how people can justify that they are winning at chess when they are simply playing a variant of the game perfection.
  9. 01 Dec '11 18:10
    It seems to me that this kind of chess would actually make you a worse chess player.
  10. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    01 Dec '11 20:01
    Originally posted by SmittyTime
    Games that fast are for tricksters.
    Games that fast are for fast computers with great internet speed

    I play on UChess and playing a random move immediately after my opponent uses 3 or 4 seconds. So I NEVER play unless there is at least a 5 sec increment.

    2min & 8secs is as fast as I play.
  11. 05 Dec '11 23:50
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Why do people play those kinds of games? I just finished a game played at 2 minutes and had a totally winning position, but ran out of time.

    Do people really enjoy such short games that are won simply by the clock? Seems strange to me.
    Games aren't won "simply by the clock"

    Beginners to this sort of chess often lose on time just as beginners in general often get mated in five moves. It has the added dimension of a short time limit so that you must be thinking always about what your next move can be and what your opponent is doing... if played properly it can indeed improve your game, contrary to popular belief.
  12. 06 Dec '11 21:55
    Originally posted by tomtom232
    Games aren't won "simply by the clock"

    The two games that I played were. The guy made some terrible moves. He was giving away pieces!

    I suppose there are two kinds of games here: good games and the win on time games. I've only played two games on this time control so my experience may not be the norm.
  13. 07 Dec '11 00:58 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Eladar
    The two games that I played were. The guy made some terrible moves. He was giving away pieces!

    I suppose there are two kinds of games here: good games and the win on time games. I've only played two games on this time control so my experience may not be the norm.
    Did you go over it afterwards? Did you capitalize with minimal moves?

    Once you start playing better blitz players your games start looking a lot like your slower games do.

    It is kind of counterintuitive but most people lose blitz games because they don't have a clue strategically... they become lost because they can't brute force like many chess players do(in slow games) and then they drop a piece to a two move combo.

    I am almost sure this is true because when I play positions that I am unused to strategically I drop many more pieces... also flimsy tactical sacs rarely win me games whereas early unsound positional sacs that I understand tend to net me many wins.

    This would explain why Nakamura can beat Crafty in blitz chess yet can't break the 1900s on CTS.

    (I assume you mean 3 mins and below when you say very short time controls and not something ridiculous like some of the 1 sec per move games I've seen played.)
  14. 07 Dec '11 02:16
    I enjoy 1+1, 1, 2, 2+2, 5, and all of the bronstein's are fun.

    Q
  15. 07 Dec '11 02:29
    I'm addicted to one minute bullet chess and I agree with Eladar. It does make me a worse player.