Correspondence Vs Blitz

Ok, I just now started playing on this site, those games are called correspondene right? Not sure, but anyway I am referring to games that have a long duration.

From what I have read on this site, you guys say that blitz doesn't really help for improvement? How accurate is that? How much difference is there? If I play correspondence will my blitz also get stronger?

I just want to know a bit more about this thanks guys.


*EDIT

Just a little somthing I want to add, I have 99% of the time been playing Blitz and my blitz rating is about 1240(I started playing chess 2 months ago). I think my slow games is also quite strong. I do think that blitz helped me improve allot.

I wonder if I started playing slower games will I benifit more...

A blitz game would be one played with very little time on the clock, the complete opposite of the correspondence courses here.

The reason most people would say they aren't useful for instruction is that you don't have sufficient time to analyze the game. You are essentially moving at close to as fast as you can. It may be useful, however, in showing how much you've internalized.

Correspondence chess is probably just the opposite, you would be able to absorb chess's little lessons, and more fully explore the possibilities. However, there are probably many people, maybe including myself, who haven't yet fully absorbed a lot of chess because we dont have to.

Blitz chess is particularily useful for learning patterns, tactics, and the concepts relating to creating threats and defending against them. I wouldn't recommend playing Blitz for those who are new to chess because they're likely to get slaughtered but it's definitely a useful tool later in one's chess education so to speak.

Blitz is chess as its finest; everything else is practice.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Blitz is chess as its finest; everything else is practice.

Blitz is fun stuff...so is all the other - there's no bad form of chess - play what you like. I like it all, so I play it all - 30's, 90's, CC, blitz.

I've just finished playing in the Portsmouth Congress. I had 3 draws in the blitz finish. All draws were from "won" positions and all would have been easy wins here but with minutes left on my clock to finish the whole game I blundered and threw away wins. Those points made all the difference between a share of the top 3 prizes and being no where. One of them was actually against the eventual winner of the tournament.

There is no question play in blitz deteriotes dramatically.

keep blitzin' bro, thats what ya do da best.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Blitz is chess as its finest; everything else is practice.

I think that is a matter of personal taste, for me I get most pleasure from standard time games in our league which are 75 mins for 35 moves and either finish in 20 mins or 15 mins for every 7 moves thereafter.

99.9% of the games I've played are blitz.

Originally posted by Falco Lombardi
99.9% of the games I've played are blitz.

when you say you started chess in 2005, do you mean you learned how the pieces moved then, or that you started studying chess then?

do you have any estimation on how many blitz games you have played? how did your improving progress along the way?

I'm just curious about how much games it takes to reach your level on blitz, and how such 99.9% blitz diet works out generally.

how about your other training over the years?

Originally posted by wormwood
do you have any estimation on how many blitz games you have played?

more than 25,000 for me, which is less than 95% of my total

Originally posted by Dragon Fire
I've just finished playing in the Portsmouth Congress. I had 3 draws in the blitz finish. All draws were from "won" positions and all would have been easy wins here but with minutes left on my clock to finish the whole game I blundered and threw away wins. Those points made all the difference between a share of the top 3 prizes and being no where. One of ...[text shortened]... tual winner of the tournament.

There is no question play in blitz deteriotes dramatically.

That sounds like a personal lack of blitz experience, not blitz-induced blunders. In a blitz game, having minutes on the clock is not time pressure.

Agreed.

Originally posted by wormwood
when you say you started chess in 2005, do you mean you learned how the pieces moved then, or that you started studying chess then?

do you have any estimation on how many blitz games you have played? how did your improving progress along the way?

I'm just curious about how much games it takes to reach your level on blitz, and how such 99.9% blitz diet works out generally.

how about your other training over the years?

I'm just saying I've played a lot more blitz games than anything else. It was a little bit of an exaggeration I know. I started studying chess in 2005, but I've been slacking lately.

Originally posted by Falco Lombardi
I'm just saying I've played a lot more blitz games than anything else. It was a little bit of an exaggeration I know. I started studying chess in 2005, but I've been slacking lately.

yes, but I'm really interested in how many games you've played (roughly) to get where you are now? and what kind of a learning curve there is. - I've played less than 200 blitz games ever, and I'm guessing lack of experience is why I suck at it so bad. I know it's not lack of understanding chess, I know it's not my tactics, I know it's not my openings. and unlike here, I seem to outplay my peers in endgame. that leaves experience as far as I can guess. so, that's why I'd like to find out what it took for you to get to 1900-2000 in blitz.

for example, we're about the same with wulebgr here, but after 25 000 blitz games he outranks me by 400 points in blitz.