23 Jun 06
2 edits
[Event "rated standard match"]
[Site "freechess.org"]
[Date "2006.06.22"]
[Round "?"]
[White "CMSBones"]
[Black "ohiniya"]
[Result "*"]
[WhiteElo "1342"]
[BlackElo "1604"]
[ECO "C30"]
[TimeControl "1800"]
1. e4 e5 2. f4 Bc5 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. fxe5 Nxe4 5. d4 Bb6 6. Bd3 d5 7. O-O O-O 8.
Re1 Bf5 9. Nc3 Nxc3 10. bxc3 Qd7 11. Rf1 Bg4 12. Qd2 Nc6 13. Ng5 g6 14. Nxh7
Kxh7 15. Qh6+ Kg8 16. Bxg6 *
Does white win here?
Looking through it I think black gains advantage after fxg6 qxg6+ Qg7.
23 Jun 06
Originally posted by ShinidokiBecause, I haven't played at FICS more than once a week in a while 😉. I should be about 1400+ on there.
How can you be 1400-1500 here, and only 1300-1400 at FICS...
I know corr. and Standard games are very different, but i am slightly confused as to why some of that success hasn't transfered over.
23 Jun 06
Originally posted by ShinidokiFICS ratings are hard to rebuild after a sequence of losses (I ossiclate from 1750-1950 there, where my handle is Ihaveagirlfriend btw) and plus you're much more likely to lose games to a bad blunder there, at blitz speed limits at least. I actually quite strongly disagree with you - unless you play each speed limit in the same way, you'll have a distinctly different rating at each, depending on your strengths and weaknesses. Especially if, like me, you're prone to hanging pieces and overlooking certain kinds of tactics under time-pressure. Or if, say, you're a gambit/romantic/hacking type of player - you're 3+0 rating on FICS will be wildly different from your 3 with 7 rating here, say.
How can you be 1400-1500 here, and only 1300-1400 at FICS...
I know corr. and Standard games are very different, but i am slightly confused as to why some of that success hasn't transfered over.
23 Jun 06
Originally posted by TommyCIn blitz & bullet speed is the main element, making good moves quickly.
FICS ratings are hard to rebuild after a sequence of losses (I ossiclate from 1750-1950 there, where my handle is Ihaveagirlfriend btw) and plus you're much more likely to lose games to a bad blunder there, at blitz speed limits at least. I actually quite strongly disagree with you - unless you play each speed limit in the same way, you'll have a distinctly d ...[text shortened]... r - you're 3+0 rating on FICS will be wildly different from your 3 with 7 rating here, say.
^ I know this, and I also know in corr. time is rarely the issue.
but Lets assume that in your corr. games you always use an opening book, after a while, the moves will be committed to memory...
and so, in your 5-0 blitz game you play the opening quickly and well....because you remember
My assumption is that corr. will aide your pattern reckonition, etc -- and aide it well, because you have looked at all the positions throughly, and more importantly, remember them.
thus, I would have expection a co-relation between the ratings, strongest when the time controls are closer and weaker when further apart (i.e 1day--2hrs - strong, 1day-- 1min - weak)
^if that made any sense.
23 Jun 06
2 edits
Originally posted by ShinidokiIt makes sense but I disagree with you in some ways. Here's my theory:
In blitz & bullet speed is the main element, making good moves quickly.
^ I know this, and I also know in corr. time is rarely the issue.
but Lets assume that in your corr. games you always use an opening book, after a while, the moves will be committed to memory...
and so, in your 5-0 blitz game you play the opening quickly and well....because ...[text shortened]... ker when further apart (i.e 1day--2hrs - strong, 1day-- 1min - weak)
^if that made any sense.
I think chess thinking is composed of two things
- pattern recognition
- conscious thought.
Pattern recognition is largely subconscious and learnt through blitz games and puzzle solving - run-of-the-mill tactics, captures, and also thematic strategic ideas, etc. Conscious thought is everything else - novel strategic planning, organised analysis, , complex/unusual tactics, etc. You can be very good at one and very bad at the other. In correspondence chess you can be very poor at the former but it won't matter. In blitz, you can have no conscious thought but still be very good due to tactic-spotting etc, and an aggressive ethos of 'the pieces don't move backwards'.
I don't think opening theory is that important in blitz. 1.a3 or 1. ... a6 and it's irrelevant. You will usually get chances later in the game anyway, even if you play a dubious line. (I often go for a QGD as black with Lasker's early and nowadays rare ... Ne4, with good enough results.) And tough resistance in blitz makes it clear how hard 'technique' and 'conversion' really can be. The one place I agree with you is traps - if you have a thorough knowledge of opening traps you'll do well in blitz. But why should they ever work at these speed limits here?
My hunch is you would get a middling, but not strong, correlation between standards of play at dramatically different speed limits - of something like 400 points, based on my experience.
24 Jun 06
2 edits
your chance of success dramtically increase if you play uncommon tactical minefields in blitz.
for example, Muzio Gambit in KG, Grob, or even better, the blackmar-diemer gambit.
...these work 1oo times better than the almost pointless wastes like "1.a3".
^ with the exception of the grob, Muzio and Blackmar are reasonably sound openings, which means you could play them in corr. games with reasonable sucess
and after a several (high quality) corr. games you will know (and hopefully remember & understand) all the lines and theory - which consequently means you have a powerful repetoire for Blitz, and corr. games...
EDIT: - removed redundant point, Grammar, spelling, etc.
24 Jun 06
Originally posted by ShinidokiYes, that's all true and I agree with your points. But . . . I still find the spirit of my argument more convincing! Like I said I expect some correlation between standards of play at different time limits - just not as much as you perhaps do.
while it is easy to win blitz games with odd novlties like 1.a3 your chance of success dramtically is you play uncommon tactical minefields.
for example, Muzio Gambit in KG, Grob, or even better, the blackmar-diemer gambit.
^ these work 1oo times better than "1.a3", if you know all the lines and theory - which consequently you could easily learn playing Corr. games.