Comments on https://lichess.org/@/benkonian/blog/is-blitz-chess-good-for-our-chess/3F3Hbw4l
Why stop at age 35+ - surely the rest of players can be categorised into age groups too.
I usually rank better in over the board tournaments by practicing Bullet
Good article. I'm on the side of blitz as a tool for improving if you analyse and act on the games. The 1700-2000 switching from learning to training was a good point.
@RNPK said in #2:
> Why stop at age 35+ - surely the rest of players can be categorised into age groups too.
@benkonian,
My experience backs up your points. At age 70 I am trying to be an old adult chess improver. It's not going well, as we might expect. According to the literature, my neuroplasticity, if I am average, is half that of a young person of 20. It will plummet more, and more rapidly, over the next 10 to 15 years, if I live that long. That is the normal course of things. As well as low neuroplasticity, an old person is battling slow processing speed (slow thinking) and low energy levels.
The flip side for an old person is accumulated "world knowledge": while they can still remember it of course. An old, compos mentis person with a lot of world knowledge in one or more fields can remain good at slow, deliberative thinking in their trained areas, though they may be slow or resistant in researching, absorbing and integrating new discoveries into their field knowledger An old person who has not achieved earlier competency at a mental discipline, chess in this case, has no significant "world knowledge" or accumulated knowledge in chess and chess patterns. This appears, from a self-experiment I am running to date, to present an almost insuperable barrier to chess improvement (along with slow processing speed (slow thinking) and low energy levels.
I found it completely impossible to play meaningful chess at blitz speed. Rapid 15+10 is the fastest pace at which I can play moves which at least look like I am playing chess. Blunders and time-outs still abound. Random Lichess puzzles which I did assiduously for about seven months did little to improve me. Now, attempting space repetition pattern learning for a few months, so far appears to be making little difference either but this experiment is still young, unlike me.
My basic general knowledge of chess is okay but my positional understanding and tactics are very poor. For tactics I need bulk, space repetition pattern training, which I am attempting. However, the rate at which I can absorb and retain these patterns is low. I now estimate I can add and retain simple new patterns and combinations at about the rate of 25 per week to a level of about 90% to 95% test accuracy over time but with rather slow pattern recognition to find the correct first move being of the order of about 10 seconds to 30 seconds. (This is nowhere near the zone of blitz speed.) This is only achieved with spaced repetition reviews and then considerable Overstudy for a combined factor of at least double the default number of spaced repetition reps on Chessable.
At this rate I will reliably absorb and remember, long term and at (approx.) 90% to 95% test accuracy, about 25 x 50 = 1,250 patterns per annum. This is lamentably low and suggests long term failure of my attempt to improve at chess in my 70s. My case is uninteresting except that it is a data point suggesting that the upper age bound for statistically significant adult chess improvement, beyond an initial plateau achieved by knowing the rules and basic general principles, is below the age of 70 and likely well below.
Nevertheless, I will continue the self-experiment for at least another year and maybe two, if that proves possible.
Most helpful article ever thank you FM
I think blitz is an EXTREMELY effective training method
Evidence: I love playing blitz
I think @benkonian 's theory holds. You have to be of a certain chess competency before blitz is useful for further improvement. Below a certain threshold rating, a player cannot learn anything from blitz. It's too frenetic and too confusing. You are above that threshold. I am way below it. I have to learn basic stuff and do basic pattern reps and then I might (low probability) improve enough to one day benefit from Blitz.
There's one important distinction here that repeatedly indirectly hit on, but never explicitly said. And I think it answers this question easily and succinctly. *How* are you playing blitz? There are basically two styles of play. You can play blitz like a slow game played very quickly, or you can play it like a meta-game where the goal is just to flag the other guy.
If you're playing blitz chess like "normal" chess, then it can be an excellent tool to improve. If you're playing it like a sort of variant of chess where the goal is to shuffle pieces to try to get ahead on the clock then you may see extremely rapid rating increases, but probably aren't getting any better at chess - and may even be getting worse, since it can reinforce very bad habits.
I've even bumped into more than a few 2200+ guys who still play amazing concepts like the Colle without any attempt to play e4. An even more common example is the Scandinavian with the little c6/e6 crab center but with no effort to play c5 or e5. And 'back in the day' I used to really fear that sort of very passive stuff, because it's indeed a pretty tough nut to crack, at first made tougher by the fact that the passive side can practically premove shuffle.
This distinction then works as a sort of first principle for a lot of the other arguments you made. For instance playing slow chess rapidly is not possible until one already has a reasonable skillset internalized or are 'unconsciously competent' for the fancy term, because otherwise you're just not going to be able to play reasonable moves quickly enough.
@OhNoMyPants said in #9:
> There's one important distinction here that repeatedly indirectly hit on, but never explicitly said. And I think it answers this question easily and succinctly. *How* are you playing blitz? There are basically two styles of play. You can play blitz like a slow game played very quickly, or you can play it like a meta-game where the goal is just to flag the other guy.
>
> If you're playing blitz chess like "normal" chess, then it can be an excellent tool to improve. If you're playing it like a sort of variant of chess where the goal is to shuffle pieces to try to get ahead on the clock then you may see extremely rapid rating increases, but probably aren't getting any better at chess - and may even be getting worse, since it can reinforce very bad habits.
>
> I've even bumped into more than a few 2200+ guys who still play amazing concepts like the Colle without any attempt to play e4. An even more common example is the Scandinavian with the little c6/e6 crab center but with no effort to play c5 or e5. And 'back in the day' I used to really fear that sort of very passive stuff, because it's indeed a pretty tough nut to crack, at first made tougher by the fact that the passive side can practically premove shuffle.
>
> This distinction then works as a sort of first principle for a lot of the other arguments you made. For instance playing slow chess rapidly is not possible until one already has a reasonable skillset internalized or are 'unconsciously competent' for the fancy term, because otherwise you're just not going to be able to play reasonable moves quickly enough.
This is also true people just move to fast to flag their opponent Wichita will bring up your bullet elo but drop your real chess elo like rapid and classical a way to play it and gain skill might be playing 5+2 or 5+3 where it is less likely you will try to play too fast