astinkyfart
63 ( +1 | -1 )
speed chess I 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??
More: Chess Boss
honololou
55 ( +1 | -1 )
I agree Visit 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.
More: Chess Games Online
poisonedpawn78
4 ( +1 | -1 )
just to be picky .... there is no such thing as an OTB site ... lol
More: Chess
honololou
mattchess
38 ( +1 | -1 )
To each his own I 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.
But - it IS fun (for me).
My 2 cents.
More: Chess Grandmaster
honololou
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.
More: Chess Flash Game
frodan
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
calmrolfe
59 ( +1 | -1 )
speed chess Speed 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.
Kind regards,
Cal
bafverfeldt1981
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..
snyper
11 ( +1 | -1 )
I love blitz I have a short attention span...heh
I play blitz on here actually lol...my fave blitz time is 5/3....
ravendon
224 ( +1 | -1 )
Benefits Most 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.
certainratio
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?
CertainRatio
astinkyfart
79 ( +1 | -1 )
not what i meant Im 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.
refutor
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
astinkyfart
peppe_l
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?
drdesoto
99 ( +1 | -1 )
Lightning rulez .... some interesting stuff concerning speed chess at www.checkmate.de/.
Created by the official World Bullet Champion GM Roland Schmaltz (Germany):
www.chessclub.com/cgi-bin/finger/finger.pl?handle=hawkeye
I personally like 1 0 games (though I am not very good at them). Great fun and good matches are possible (if you are a GM of course ;-)). You can checkout some more games at www.chessclub.com
[Event "ICC 1 0"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2002.09.05"]
[Round "-"]
[White "NDShort"]
[Black "garompon"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ICCResult "White resigns"]
[WhiteElo "2615"]
[BlackElo "2711"]
[Opening "Petrov: modern attack, Symmetrical variation"]
[ECO "C43"]
[NIC "RG.02"]
[Time "03:15:46"]
[TimeControl "60+0"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. d4 Nxe4 4. Qe2 d5 5. Nxe5 Be7 6. Nd2 Nxd2 7. Bxd2 O-O
8. O-O-O Nc6 9. Nxc6 bxc6 10. Qh5 Rb8 11. Bd3 g6 12. Qh6 Bf6 13. c3 c5 14.
dxc5 Qd7 15. h4 Qa4 16. Bb1 Bf5 17. Qf4 d4 18. g4 Bxb1 19. Kxb1 Qa3 20. Bc1
dxc3 21. Rd2 cxd2 22. Qxd2 Rfd8 23. Qc2 Qf3 24. Re1 Bc3 25. Re7 Bxb2
{White resigns}
0-1
certainratio
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.
CertainRatio
astinkyfart
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.
edmaster
14 ( +1 | -1 )
TO ASTINKYFART I AM AGREEING WITH YOU A VERY LONG PROFESSIONAL GAME CHESS IS THE WAY TO BECOME A STRONGER CHESSPLAYER!YOUR CHESS COMRADE EDMASTER
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!
certainratio
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?
CertainRatio
edmaster
15 ( +1 | -1 )
NOW FOR EXAMPLE THE WORLD CHESS FEDERARTION(FIDE)HAS SPEEDED UP PROFESSIONAL CHESS AND MOW IS A JOKE!ALSO THEY HAVE SHORTENED MATCHES TOO!ALSO A JOKE!
acne
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.
astinkyfart
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.
death_by_pawns
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.
_tony_
90 ( +1 | -1 )
One doesn't exclude the other One 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.
certainratio
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,
CertainRatio