Originally posted by SquelchbelchI'll just comment on this inaccurate statement: "It's just a case of throwing pawns & pieces up the board quicker than the other guy."
I agree.
10 mins (no increments) is useful for getting your openings straight & a bit of tactics training, but yeah, anything much less is nonsense.
You get people 2 pieces down, with # in 3 but winning on time in 3 minute games. It's just a case of throwing pawns & pieces up the board quicker than the other guy.
It may be fun but it can't be good for your chess.
Not true at all, 3/0 blitz is basically all tactics. If you make bad moves you'll get punished.
Originally posted by cmsMasterI agree essentially, but I prefer 3/1. 😛
I'll just comment on this inaccurate statement: "It's just a case of throwing pawns & pieces up the board quicker than the other guy."
Not true at all, 3/0 blitz is basically all tactics. If you make bad moves you'll get punished.
Originally posted by cmsMasterwell now thats just semantics. I think, and I'm sure the others agree that for his time troubles he'd be better off to play rapid with somewhat conservative time controls.
Are you kidding me? 3/0 is without a doubt the most popular blitz time controls. There's plenty of time to think, the majority of the 3/0s that I play end in the following ways: checkmate or resignation. And, if it's a win on time the player who times out is often in a completely losing position anyway.
BTW: 10 min. and 20 min. games aren't blitz...they're rapid. For rapid I'm a big fan of 15/5.
Rather than play blitz.
3 edits
Originally posted by cmsMasterPopular does not mean good. Just look at Microsoft Windows. 😛 I may be in a minority, but to me, anything under 5 0 is hardly chess at all and completely meaningless. Although, I do watch 1 0 mouse racing for the occasional laugh, it's a waste of time if you want to improve or demonstrate your skill.
Are you kidding me? 3/0 is without a doubt the most popular blitz time controls. There's plenty of time to think, the majority of the 3/0s that I play end in the following ways: checkmate or resignation. And, if it's a win on time the player who times out is often in a completely losing position anyway.
BTW: 10 min. and 20 min. games aren't blitz...they're rapid. For rapid I'm a big fan of 15/5.
This isn't just because of the general lack of quality or time tricks. Master level players can play some fantastic blitz games. I've seen some on ICC. However, at less than 5 0, they are no longer analyzing. It's lightning fast pattern recognition (calculation fits here to a good degree), good memory and experience. More succinctly, it's intuition. Even though they can often play reasonably well this way, the essential element of chess is largely absent. They're not deeply thinking and considering any moves or plans - nor can they. It's like putting planes on autopilot and letting them race.
In a real chess game, all of the qualities above are still important, but one doesn't play purely on intuition, one considers many plans, and candidate moves, etc. Even if instinct turns out to be correct, it serves as a guide and not an end. The moves are still thoroughly considered. There is enough time to really think about all the subtle features of the position and make a good decision. It is enough time to apply the full extent of one's chess knowledge and intellect, nor just the first thing that comes to mind. In this case, a more thoughtful player with greater knowledge and skill will win over a rash player who can simply make decent moves (few blunders) but very few best moves (with little understanding). In blitz, the steady fish may be favored because that style of play requires far less time. Moreover, the more skilled player may have insufficient experience or preparation to play by reflex. OTB is much more, complex, intense and rewarding (at least to me.). It's the most meaningful test of strength and much more intellectually demanding.
To call 3 0 plenty of time seems pretty strange to me. If the game lasts an average of 40 moves, that's only a little more than 4 seconds per move. The best players in the world still make quite a few mistakes at time controls of 2 hours for every 40 moves, or 4 hours per side given a normal game. I'm sure you don't play "perfect" chess at 3 min. Maybe it's enough time to make some reasonable looking moves, but it's not plenty of time if you want a decent game where you can learn something.
1 edit
Originally posted by cmsMasterUsually blitz is thought of as 5 minutes (perhaps with a tiny increment) or less. However, I've seen some systems, like ICC categorize anything under 15 0 as blitz. Although, in the case of ICC, they don't have a special rapid play section (unfortunate). I'm not sure how playchess.com does it. Is there any official definition from FIDE or the USCF for what constitutes blitz, rapid and standard. It would certainly be easier when discussing this!
BTW: 10 min. and 20 min. games aren't blitz...they're rapid. For rapid I'm a big fan of 15/5.
Originally posted by no1marauderEasy. Blitz appeals to the adrenaline junkie within. The gratification of winning comes much quicker. The long waits for your opponent to move [one of the worst parts of slow chess] are gone. And even if you lose most of a series of games, at least you have not blown the whole day [or whole weekend].
Why would anyone want to play "chess" at such time controls? There's hardly any time to think at all; you're talking 5 seconds to complete a move - that's what the USCF gives as an increment.
In a strange way, blitz can show just how well a player knows their technique. A competent blitz player ought to be able to finish off K+R vs. K in 10 seconds or less [faster if online].
Finally, a game of slow chess can become a blitz game at the end of Sudden Death. Players without any blitz experience get very panicky and frequently blunder games away at this stage. A practiced blitz player will be able to make plausible moves even with seconds left [or use other tactics, like deliberately making a dubious, but complicating move, just to force the opponent to think and use precious seconds].
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitYeah, a near expert at my club has suggested to me a few times that I periodically play 1 or 2 minute games just for that reason.
Finally, a game of slow chess can become a blitz game at the end of Sudden Death. Players without any blitz experience get very panicky and frequently blunder games away at this stage. A practiced blitz player will be able to make plausible moves even with seconds left [or use other tactics, like deliberately making a dubious, but complicating move, just to force the opponent to think and use precious seconds].
Originally posted by SwissGambitThank you, thank you, that's a better reply than I could have made probably.
Easy. Blitz appeals to the adrenaline junkie within. The gratification of winning comes much quicker. The long waits for your opponent to move [one of the worst parts of slow chess] are gone. And even if you lose most of a series of games, at least you have not blown the whole day [or whole weekend].
In a strange way, blitz can show just how well a pl ...[text shortened]... a dubious, but complicating move, just to force the opponent to think and use precious seconds].
Originally posted by exigentskyPlaychess works the same way.
Usually blitz is thought of as 5 minutes (perhaps with a tiny increment) or less. However, I've seen some systems, like ICC categorize anything under 15 0 as blitz. Although, in the case of ICC, they don't have a special rapid play section (unfortunate). I'm not sure how playchess.com does it. Is there any official definition from FIDE or the USCF for what constitutes blitz, rapid and standard. It would certainly be easier when discussing this!
1 edit
Originally posted by Mad RookI don't see it helping at 1 0, you won't even reach an endgame 99% of the time. When you do, it will be overkill so technique is almost irrelevant. However, it might help at 5 0 to 10 0. These are long enough that you still have a good chance of getting into time trouble at the end but it will have the semblance of a real game. I use 5 0 to help me with that, get experience in openings and improve tactics. It has its role too but I value it only for OTB training and the fun it provides in itself.
Yeah, a near expert at my club has suggested to me a few times that I periodically play 1 or 2 minute games just for that reason.
Something I'm curious about is the difference between OTB 5 0 and online 5 0. When you take into account the speed of the mouse, no touching the clock, mouse hover techniques and premove, how much effectively shorter is OTB 5 0? I suspect it's at least a minute.
Originally posted by exigentskyHis reasoning isn't so much endgame technique as just learning to make reasonable moves nearly instantly - which I'm still terrible at. I really haven't practiced much what he suggested. I'll try to start doing it some.
I don't see it helping at 1 0, you won't even reach an endgame 99% of the time. When you do, it will be overkill so technique is almost irrelevant. However, it might help at 5 0 to 10 0. These are long enough that you still have a good chance of getting into time trouble at the end but it will have the semblance of a real game. I use 5 0 to help me with ...[text shortened]... ques and premove, how much effectively shorter is OTB 5 0? I suspect it's at least a minute.