Speed has replaced Quality (here on lichess in particular)

@Sarg0n You have so far refused to answer the simple question why you insist on playing non-increment timecontrols, when doing so will obviously lower the quality of the games.

You also didn't really give a response as to why you are cherrypicking the weakest possible opponents. You have an anonymous account to play against decent opposition.. lol?
If you care about 'quality of the games', why are you regularly playing people 200+ rating below you? When I want quality games, I look for the strongest opponent I can find, for obvious reasons.

Btw, I have played a few games of 5+0 out of necessity (played an archaic OTB Blitz event, and wanted to practice for it), and the players are abysmal. Like, downright terrible. Felt like the 5+0 pool is about 400 pts inflated compared to 3+2 or 3+0. Again, play a different timecontrol.

Seek 2300+, in 3+2, play 15 games. Then come back and show off those 15 games.
If in all of them you are playing flawless chess, and then just sometimes losing on time; while your opponents are all terrible & dropping pieces in the opening while premoving, I'll happily admit that you have half of a point.
Until then, you are playing the weakest opposition possible, in the weakest pool you can find, without increment, and then complaining that the opposition is weak and makes moves quickly, which is a bit of a joke.

Thanks, but it isn’t about me.

@IsaVulpes

The validity of his arguments in no way depend on his chess playing habits. That's called "ad hominem" and it's just a fallacy.

Of course the validity of his arguments depends on whether he is talking about lichess as a whole, or about his own special playing bubble of 200-400 pts lower rated players, in a weak pool, without increment @Molurus

If he looked at reasonably strong players (say 2200+) in a reasonably strong pool with increment (3+2), against similar strength opposition (not vs pengu), his "findings" would perhaps hold some merit.
(For a proper evaluation, he'd still have to take a random sample of 30+ games and present ALL of them, rather than just cherrypicking the worst examples he can find out of a sample of 1000+ games, but hey, it'd be a start)

But it's natural to look bad when you are playing someone much higher rated, it's natural to play fast in the opening when you don't have an increment & potentially have to calculate a pawn race on move 55 followed by not flagging a Rook up ( @Sarg0n spends 10x the time in the opening as his opposition - then when he wins, he laughs at them for making mistakes in the opening ; and when he loses, he laughs at them for 'just moving quickly' so he dropped a piece in the endgame while down two minutes on the clock..... he's never heard of time management), and it's also natural to have even relatively high rated players look poor when you are looking at a crappy pool (I have no proof for the 5+0 pool sucking, but the few games I played in it recently certainly seemed so).

Sarg0n essentially made a thread here about how 2500 GMs suck nowadays, and his 'proof' for this are a number of games where they get gobsmacked by Carlsen; or a thread about how "speed has replaced quality" and using 0.5+0 games where a player wins via lefong as an example; or a thread about how players are weaker than their rating would suggest and tries to corroborate this with the Classical ratings of a few 15+15 players who end every game with more time on the clock than they started with (ludicriously 'inflated' in the lower ranks).
.. Except he managed to combine these three rather laughable statements into one single one, and on top of the entire statement now being entirely meaningless, his "proof" for it are a bunch of cherrypicked examples; followed by ignoring each and every single one of the number of raised counterpoints..

If you want to call something a fallacy, perhaps look at any of his arguments, instead of crawling up my ass :)

@IsaVulpes Prefixing a false statement with "of course" doesn't make it any less false.

This is a lot like saying "(of course) your idea that CO2 is a major driving factor in climate change is false, because you often travel by plane".

Sargon's chess playing habits are simply irrelevant to what he's saying. Completely irrelevant.

No, this is a lot like saying "Your idea that climate change doesn't exist is false, and your "proof" for it being that you don't feel any warmer, while sitting in your fridge, is.. a joke. Go outside, so you can form any comparison at all, and then use actual data, rather than cherrypicking the four cold days this year, thanks". :)

@Molurus, it is not an ad hominen attack to criticise @Sarg0n 's own chess habits, his original post is personal. Please refer to post #1, "I have played online for 18 years on various servers and I have noticed the following".

Therefore it follows that post #91 is completely on point. Why would someone create a post in relation to speed and quality, then play blitz games without increment and rapid games at 8-0, while playing significantly weaker players. As I said before, very dubious. What is more he then has the audacity to write some post about chess quality (!). Hypocrisy at its finest.

Again Molurus, the reason for exposing Sarg0n's online chess habits is to help him realise the newspeak which he promulgates. When he starts to play people of similar strength, and with increment, he will see that speed is not supplementing quality.

The comments of @IsaVulpes, @Burrower, @clousems are akin to charity: to help this bitter guy realise that there is quality to be found on lichess.

@SoWeakAtThis

I happen to agree with what he's saying and the arguments he's presenting for it. Are you saying he's wrong and I'm right, not because of a difference in arguments but because of a difference in chess habits?

That would be really odd. I'd say that would still be a fallacy, an error in reasoning.

You could also insist we're both wrong for the same reasons, but then it would be weird to bring his chess habits into it. Because if I were to use the same arguments, why would they be refuted by someone else's chess habits? That really makes no sense at all.

Just look into the Moloch which they call „lichess database“. Millions of decided games before move 10, thousands of Scholar‘s Mates, billions of hanging pieces, Bongcloud Bull(sh)it.

Every offline Blitz tournament has a higher standard, by some orders of magnitude. A horrible amount of decisive blunders even in longer time controls within the first couple of moves. People agree to play Blitz/Rapid and resign after 5s.

Although much bigger than any other database it is practically worthless. I did some research, it‘s like searching something useful on the garbage dump. There is certainly some quality but it’s pretty hard to find.

This is an observation. No, it‘s not about me resp. my games. It’s no good getting personal.

"There is certainly some quality but it’s pretty hard to find."

This is true for the entire internet. Chess servers are no exception.

Heh, I wonder how many people have been looking into my chess habits in the hope to make the same false argument towards me. Most people online know next to nothing about the basic principles of rhetorics, and certainly don't care if their arguments are actually valid. Misplaced arrogance and narcissism seem to be common diseases online.