- Joined
- 12 Nov 06
- Moves
- 74414
30 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarYour position isn't "totally winning" if you're down on time 😉
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.
30 Nov 11
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.
30 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarI 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.
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.
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.
01 Dec 11
Originally posted by PureRWandBLosing on time used to bother me when I first started playing chess. I always wanted the rating points! It was at FICS.
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]
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.
01 Dec 11
Originally posted by SmittyTimeGames that fast are for fast computers with great internet speed
Games that fast are for tricksters.
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.
05 Dec 11
Originally posted by EladarGames aren't won "simply by the clock"
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.
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.
06 Dec 11
Originally posted by tomtom232The two games that I played were. The guy made some terrible moves. He was giving away pieces!
Games aren't won "simply by the clock"
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.
07 Dec 11
2 edits
Originally posted by EladarDid you go over it afterwards? Did you capitalize with minimal moves?
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.
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.)