When you say "speed supplements quality", what is your point by this discussion? To say ratings online do not reflect classical (emphasis) OTB strength. Because that is obvious.
In blitz, I always have a thought process along the lines of: do I think for another 20 secs, make a marginally better move, or squeeze the opponent on the clock. It is a judgement call that really depends on the position and move number in the game.
You can argue you play better chess, but I will rebut you with: that is only because I had better time management.
If you want to have the who is better argument, then this leads to chess perfectionism. I would argue even classical chess can't resolve it. Does a 2-3 hours chess match really decide who is better at the game? Should it not be correspondence. Then how many days do you get per move - 3? 5? 10? Perhaps, there should be no time limit at all. The game should be conducted on a gentleman's agreement whereby both parties are fair and reasonable.
As soon as a time cadence is introduced, it is from that moment, you then have to manage this extra factor.
In relation to chess theory, that is an odd remark. Chess theory is one element of the game. There is then pawn structures, tactics, when to exchange pieces, attacks, defences, endgames, etc... In a blitz/ rapid game it almost doesn't make sense to enter into somebody's preparation. Besides, in quick games, I find playing without theory is more fun. Your opponent has to think from earlier on!
Maybe bullet and blitz is more difficult for you as you can't manage the shorter time and study too many chess openings. ;)
In blitz, I always have a thought process along the lines of: do I think for another 20 secs, make a marginally better move, or squeeze the opponent on the clock. It is a judgement call that really depends on the position and move number in the game.
You can argue you play better chess, but I will rebut you with: that is only because I had better time management.
If you want to have the who is better argument, then this leads to chess perfectionism. I would argue even classical chess can't resolve it. Does a 2-3 hours chess match really decide who is better at the game? Should it not be correspondence. Then how many days do you get per move - 3? 5? 10? Perhaps, there should be no time limit at all. The game should be conducted on a gentleman's agreement whereby both parties are fair and reasonable.
As soon as a time cadence is introduced, it is from that moment, you then have to manage this extra factor.
In relation to chess theory, that is an odd remark. Chess theory is one element of the game. There is then pawn structures, tactics, when to exchange pieces, attacks, defences, endgames, etc... In a blitz/ rapid game it almost doesn't make sense to enter into somebody's preparation. Besides, in quick games, I find playing without theory is more fun. Your opponent has to think from earlier on!
Maybe bullet and blitz is more difficult for you as you can't manage the shorter time and study too many chess openings. ;)