63 ( +1 | -1 ) speed chessI recently played chess with some members of a chess club at a local mall. I enjoyed playing live opponents because in my area they few and far between. What i didnt like is the fact they only played 5 min games. Their reasoning was that they could get more games in because they had limited time. I feel that timed chess is not chess at all. The enjoyment of the game is why I play. I would rather play one good game (win or lose) than play several just to get to the outcome and see who wins. Just wondering if anyone else had a thought on this??
55 ( +1 | -1 ) I agreeVisit any of the OTB site like POGO or Yahoo and most of the players are playing speed chess or blitz games. Many games allowed only one minute in which to make all your moves. What I enjoy about chess is the slow pace so that you can adequately consider the strengths and weaknesses of your options. Of course our society is very fast paced and people's attention spans grow shorter every year, so it should be no surprise that many prefer blitz games—but to me this is not chess.
38 ( +1 | -1 ) To each his ownI enjoy Correspondence Chess that can take months, Blitz, Lightening, and slower (even untimed) "real time" games. Speed chess and blitz add the concept of the clock as a piece - you learn to use it as you would a piece.
I find it is good for testing opening theory (see how much you can bang out quickly) and tactics. Not much good for really studying strategy.
48 ( +1 | -1 ) I definitely enjoyed…playing 20/3 minute games at POGO. Some of my most satisfying victories were when I was behind on the clock big time and still pulled out a victory with seconds to go by basically playing blitz the last 20-30 moves. I enjoy the time pressure, but feel that at less than 15 minutes to make all your moves, the clock becomes the most important factor. But then, if I was a better player I might do better at it and then my opinion would be different.
4 ( +1 | -1 ) :-)Don't read too much into a handle :-)
25 ( +1 | -1 ) ...learn slow chess.....first then you will b'come good at speed chess.Gm V.Anand is very good at speed chess,but he got that way by first b,coming very good at slow chess.same with Gm Kasparov. kind regards, okia
59 ( +1 | -1 ) speed chessSpeed chess is great. I play a lot of 2 12 chess (2 minutes plus a 12 second increment each move). It is surprising how well strategic and tactical plans can be formulated in a very short period of time. Of course, some of these may eventually prove to be flawed, but, hey ! that is the beauty of speed chess.
I always keep the pgn of these speed games and then, if I have made a strategic or tactical error, I re-evaluate the position at my leisure and try and work out what went wrong with my plan.
9 ( +1 | -1 ) blitz!1, 2, 5 or 10 min- I love it. Play at gamecolony (for competition) and MSN (for fun). Fritz always analyze my games afterwards..
11 ( +1 | -1 ) I love blitzI have a short attention span...heh I play blitz on here actually lol...my fave blitz time is 5/3....
224 ( +1 | -1 ) BenefitsMost trainers and writers strongly recommend that players avoid focussing too much time on speed chess of any kind.
Their reasoning is that it leads to a superficial understanding of the game and a trappy kind of play.
However, I feel that as long as you don't neglect studying and playing a lot of regular chess, that speed chess can help you.
There are several benefits. First, you are able to hammer out your opening repetoire and also play both sides of an opening you are preparing for a tournament game. If you prepare 3 or 4 lines, then play 1 slow game in each line you are studying, then play a bunch of blitz games on either side of those lines, then you will be better prepared. The reason I say both sides is that you should also figure out what your opponents may want to play against the lines you prepare and try various different moves from your candidate positions.
Second, blitz allows you to develop a quick, tactical eye. You are able to quickly scan a board. This complemented with a deep analysis of the various lines could be quite useful.
Third, blitz makes you comfortable with time control issues in tournament play. If you have never gotten into a time scramble before, the first time you encounter it can be devastating. Imagine that you have plenty of time, but your opponent has gotten under the 5 minutes. He stops recording his moves. You have 20 minutes. He starts speeding up and moving quicker and quicker. You respond by trying to make him use up time and so you go faster and neglect to update your scoresheet. This goes on until you lose a piece because your opponent is used to this speed. However, his flag falls. Since you have not updated your scoresheet, you can't claim the flag until you reconstruct perfectly the preceeding moves. However, you are unable to remember what moves have been played. Etc, etc. Just one example.
So, imho, as long as you place more emphasis on tactical studies, endgame studies, and other areas of your chess education, then blitz, in moderation, can be a very useful tool.
127 ( +1 | -1 ) astinkyfart:you said: "I feel that timed chess is not chess at all."
I must strongly disagree. While I agree with you that speed chess is a different breed of a game altogether (and inferior to longer games in my opinion), all chess games must be timed. If I have no time limit for a move, I am apt to think about a move until I die. The longer the thinking period, the better the move is likely to be (except in certain situations where the best move is found and cannot be disputed, like in the beginning of a mating sequence). So, what would the incentive be to make a move if you are not on a clock? Impatience, boredom, fatigue, errands to run?
Chess without clocks is ridiculous. I can't imagine Kasparov and Kramnik playing for the world title without a clock. It just wouldn't work.
I have played many over the board games with my brother without a clock. Sometimes I beat him. But recollection tells me that I spent approximately 120 minutes on my moves and he spent only 30 minutes. So, I don't see how this could be counted as a victory. In such a game, I did not beat him in "chess" I beat him in "chess with quadruple time on my side".
So if timed chess is not chess, then what the hell are Kasparov and the rest of the world's top players playing?
79 ( +1 | -1 ) not what i meantIm not talking about playing chess to infinity. Im talking about extremly short games with very little chance for a good logical tactical game. The topic was speed chess not chess without any time limit what so ever. The incentive to make a move is to play the game and win. The point you tried to make about why move without a clock really didnt make sense to me. Although im sure its possible someone would just not move for whatever reason that just doesnt make sense. I understand all things must have a reasonable time but thats not really anything close to what i was talking about. I dont think any world championships have been settled in a one minute game.
25 ( +1 | -1 ) maybe a one minute game would be better than...some of the tiebreakers...smyslov went on in the early 80s to the candidate's final in his match v. portisch by a tiebreaker...you know what the tiebreaker was? they picked a color on the roulette wheel...at least one minute speed chess would actually be chess
4 ( +1 | -1 ) i have to agree with that
18 ( +1 | -1 ) Actually...It can be questioned are one minute games chess...Of course one can say rules are the same, but a good counter-argument is question - is it chess if both players have 30 secs per game? 10 secs?
242 ( +1 | -1 ) astinkyfart:Ok. I see now it's not what you "meant". But if you look closely at my post, you'll see it starts with a quote of your earlier post. So, regardless of what you "meant", I was simply disagreeing with what you "said" namely that timed chess is not chess. This is clearly false as all tournament games, serious competititions, and world championship matches are played with a time limit. So, if it's not chess, then I ask again: What game has Garry Kasparov been playing all these years? Also, what game are you playing here at gameknot?
Also, I'm not disagreeing with the point that you are making about speed chess being something different and inferior to longer games of chess. I prefer longer games too. But they must be timed. I think my example of my beating my brother with quadruple his time proves this.
Suppose Kasparov and Kramnik were playing for the world championship without a time limit. How long do you think the game would last? Do you think the winner would be the better chess player? Such games would be marathon events lasting 24 hours and more. In the end I could see something happening like Kramnik beating Kasparov, but by using 23 hours to Kasparov's 12, perhaps winning by only tiring Kasparov out. In such a case I would not automatically declare Kramnik the better "chess" player. Then again, when facing defeat, perhaps Kasparov would just sit there for days until Kramnik decides to go home and forfeit (but I would hope good sportsmanship would prevent such a thing).
Untimed chess is just as (if not more) unlike classical chess than speed chess is. The winner should be the person who has played the better game, with all conditions being equal for both players--including an agreed upon equal amount of time (other than infinity) for both players.
Note that strong players like Kasparov can probably think deeply into certain positions for hours, days, even years (without ever moving the pieces or writing anything down). What prevents him from spending more than an hour or so at most for any given move is the chess clock.
So, I stand by my original opinion, and I have seen no logical explanation yet as to why timed chess is not chess.
68 ( +1 | -1 ) what?I cant believe you are comparing gameknot to speed chess. Your comments are simply to argue after i explained myself a little further as to what i meant you still came back and made the same arguement. Lets get over the timed chess statement if its hanging you up yes it was my words but alot of other things are with it like the fact i stated we were playing 5 minute games. Gameknot is timed and im glad it is I have had cases on Yahoo were an opponent leaves simply because they are going to lose and you cant do anything about it, but to compare gameknot to speed chess is kinda silly unless you just want an arguement.
14 ( +1 | -1 ) TO ASTINKYFARTI AM AGREEING WITH YOU A VERY LONG PROFESSIONAL GAME CHESS IS THE WAY TO BECOME A STRONGER CHESSPLAYER!YOUR CHESS COMRADE EDMASTER
83 ( +1 | -1 ) ABOUT GAMEKNOT CHESS?IT IS TURNED BASED CHESS AND IT IS GOOD!AND REAL WORLD PROFESSIONAL(OVER THE BOARD)CHESS GAMES(TORNAMENTS)AND(USCF)CHESS TOURNAMENTS WERE TIMED ACCORDINGLY(1)PRIMARY TIME CONTROL:40 MOVES/2 HOURS(2)SECONDARY TIME CONTROL:16 MOVES/1 HOUR AND THEREAFTER!SO A REAL VERY GOOD TOP PROFESSIONAL GAME OF CHESS BETWEEN(2)VERY STRONG CHESSPLAYERS COULD LAST OVER(8)HOURS!NOW THAT IS A REAL GAME OF CHESS!THE REASON FOR A REASONABLE TIME CONTROL WAS THAT IN THE PAST BEFORE CHESS CLOCKS WERE USED SOME CHESSPLAYERS USED INFINITE TIME TO THERE ADVANTAGE SO ONE PLAYER WHO OBVIOUSLY HAD A LOST GAME WOULD NOT MOVE FOR DAYS OR EVEN WEEKS!THAT IS WHY A TIME LIMIT WAS INTRODUCED!SO THE GAME SOONER OR LATER WOULD COME TO AN END!
223 ( +1 | -1 ) astinkyfart:I think you are extremely confused by my last post. I did not compare speed chess to chess here at gameknot. I simply implied that even here at gameknot the games are timed (a true fact).
You said: "Lets get over the timed chess statement if its hanging you up yes it was my words but alot of other things are with it like the fact i stated we were playing 5 minute games."
What do you mean by getting over the statement? I still think I proved that the following statement made by you is false:
"I feel that timed chess is not chess at all."
When you say you want us to get over this statement, are you admitting that the statement is false (like any sane person would) or are you rather sticking by this statement and asking me to stop arguing about it? If it is the former, I thank you for conceding my point. If it is the latter, than I believe you are acting quite unfairly since you keep saying that I am wrong but won't offer any reasons as to why.
Also, does the fact that you discussed a lot of other things in your original post imply that your statement about untimed chess is irrefutable?
Please keep in mind that I am only discussing that one statement. I have already agreed with you that speed chess is an inferior form of chess (though I have not yet said why, since the point of my messages has nothing to do with speed chess). I meant to make only one comment about the ridiculous nature of that statement since it is a pet peeve of mine (friends of mine do not understand why I insist on using a clock, which by the way, I never set for less than 90 minutes per side). But since you replied to me and ignored my point, I felt it my right to defend my position. You however have still not defended the statement about untimed chess, nor have you conceded that it is false. I find that strange.
So again, if you still believe that timed chess is not chess at all, then what game has Kasparov been playing for decades, and what game have you been playing here at gameknot? (Notice that I am again not making any comparison between speed chess and chess at gameknot.) Do you dare answer?
15 ( +1 | -1 ) NOW FOR EXAMPLETHE WORLD CHESS FEDERARTION(FIDE)HAS SPEEDED UP PROFESSIONAL CHESS AND MOW IS A JOKE!ALSO THEY HAVE SHORTENED MATCHES TOO!ALSO A JOKE!
41 ( +1 | -1 ) astinkyfart: yes games here are timed and turn based but doesn't mean you and your opponent have to wait till the last second to make a move =) for example, i've finished two games in about 5 mins, both of 30 moves and more. i think it just depends on your opponent, some think a really long time, some move fast like in blitz chess.
106 ( +1 | -1 ) answer what?I fail to see the point you are making. You have taken one statement out of my thread and harped on it. Why i do not know. You seem to use intelligent words and phrases but common sense my be what is needed here. If you dont understand the thread (speed chess) not timed chess we can argue to infinety. Saying timed chess isnt chess at all was not to be taken so literally as you have. Maybe u are from a different country i dont know but somethings the way the are said are not presented as a fact. If they statement timed chess is not chess is the only thing u took from the original thread im sorry u misunderstood. I think the whole story was self explanitory but i guess not to everyone. I think i have agreed already that chess needs a time limit and completey agreed with you to a certain degree. Do you honestly not understand what im talking about?? I think you want to argue , but just remember the thread was speed chess not timed chess. I mean cmon read the whole thing common sense will tell u what i was talking about.
21 ( +1 | -1 ) All I know is that I used to play speed chess when I first started learning. I played a Yahoo! with 1 min -5 min. I never learned anything until I came here. Now I'm playing 10 min games.
90 ( +1 | -1 ) One doesn't exclude the otherOne of the best and funniest games i've played lasted 18 months :) my father had a board standing in a corner of his house, and i used to play a move whenever i visited him, like once a week... The next time i came he had made his. When it ended-I resigned after 62 moves-it felt like loosing an old friend lol. I enjoy the absorbation of a two hour game, carefully analyzing every step along the way. Having said this, I also love 2 min blitz. I think it gives you another perspective, and also actually says a lot about you as a chessplayer. I don't think you can play good fast if you can't play good slow.. Not that I'm a top player-fast or slow-i just love the game and is still learning. And I have found that blitz is an excellent way to learn, since you have to have that immediate overlook of the board, that is important also in longer games.
181 ( +1 | -1 ) astinkyfart:You said: "Saying timed chess isnt chess at all was not to be taken so literally as you have." Ok. I apologize. I do not know how to take words other than literally. I do not see any idoms, figures of speech, or metaphors in the sentence in question, but perhaps you are operating under a personal definition of the word "timed."
You said: "I think you want to argue" Not at all. I'll drop the entire issue now and wish you good conversation with others.
You said: "but just remember the thread was speed chess not timed chess. I mean cmon read the whole thing common sense will tell u what i was talking about." Ok, I see now why we were having this debate. I did read the whole thread, and I agreed with everything in it except for that one sentence. I chose to dispute that sentence. Rather than admitting immediately that the sentence wasn't intended as a fact, you tried to point my attention to the rest of your thread, even though I already agreed with the rest of the thread.
You said: "Maybe u are from a different country i dont know but somethings the way the are said are not presented as a fact." I believe this is one of the major problems with the world. People don't communicate in precise, unambiguous ways. You want some of your sentences to be taken as fact and not others, and you want your readers to be able to tell which are which. You will probably think that the decision is obvious in this case, and I'm sure many will agree with you. You are part of the majority in this issue (unfortunately). Nevertheless, I do not understand the ways of the majority and prefer to speak and interpret literally as much as I possibly can unless it is being made clear to me that I should interpret otherwise.
Anyway, sorry for the confusion, and I wish you many good games of chess,
7 ( +1 | -1 ) okno biggie , people like u make the forums interesting anyway.