Speed has replaced Quality (here on lichess in particular)

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. ;)

#1 @Sarg0n Your view is very common, but with respect I find it very illogical whenever I hear it.

There is always a most rational approach to playing chess. In faster time controls, this approach changes.

The fundamental thing to understand in terms of results, is that even the most advantageously computer evaluated and undeniably succulent positions in the world are worthless if you lose on time. Therefore, a rational view of speed chess integrates time more significantly as part of the ongoing evaluation. For instance, it might be better to be down 1 pawn in an endgame than it is to have 10secs vs opponent's 20secs on the clock. A distinct series of rational choices usually lead up to this point.

In fast time controls, a chess player must be rational in where they invest time thinking. They must accurately discern the potential for positional gain against the clock loss and make an optimal judgement call. It's also rational to work out how to induce opponent errors and create situations where they need to invest more time. This leads to more unorthodox opening strategies that cannot be solved quickly by opponent familiarity or advanced preparation. Players are also rational in working out to how to invest minimal study time for the same results.

In all ways, the choices a player makes in fast time controls can be derived from a purely rational framework. It's a science to work out how to play optimally under the constraints that you choose. Just because it is not identical to OTB, or just because these strategies are simply an unseen realm to many players, that doesn't make it any less of a science in reality.

"Bad" or "coffeehouse" are illogical judgements that arise if you're trying to apply an OTB/long TC derived rational framework to faster time controls. It's also an unhelpful investment of thinking time to complain about such things, because it's orientated towards what you feel is out of your control, rather than how you can play more optimally with regard to the conditions. Presumably, despite having chosen to participate in fast time controls in the first place. Players who complain also forget a lot of critical facts, like @soweakatthis rightly pointed out, you only play higher quality chess because of your opponents better time management. It's a fallacy to assume that he couldn't also play equally or better if he spent an equal quantity of time.

Differences in move quality are also often exaggerated (usually by people wanting to feel better about themselves). For instance, flagging is often presented as a sort of loophole that players are choosing to exploit to get big ratings. But this isn't true in reality. You need to be a good player (outside of crazy scrambles where you're making a rational choice to get the flag), because if your moves are consistently low quality throughout the game, you will end up in bad positions that either lead to mate more quickly or cause big problems that will burn your clock significantly.

When you zoom out, there's something like an overall phase shift in move quality. For instance, in move quality (or acpl) terms, a 2800 vs 2800 1/0 game might be equivalent to a 2500 vs 2500 blitz game, which might be equivalent to a 2200 vs 2200 rapid game. So there's always an increase in move quality in any particular pool, but they're shifted relative to each other. In a similar way, even if we had 2 hours, Magnus could probably beat most of us with only 30 seconds on his clock. But you always need to be rational in your approach and make higher quality moves to get better.

In my view, players who complain about their opponents flagging them or get peeved at a deterioration in move quality are just like crabby penny-pinching chess misers. Just as an old penny-pinching miser woman might sit on her pile of money and refuse to give her starving relatives a little dosh for food. So too, the chess miser sits on his plump pile of ideas like "chess should be played a certain way", "they clearly haven't read the classics", "this wouldn't work in OTB" "this position was simply winning but then he flagged me". He's committed to his delusional hoarding of preconceived ideas so to speak. He would never trade them in, even if it meant winning on time and better results. He refuses to let go of them at any cost. After the game he will simply think "I was winning, but he flagged me", "he only won by playing a dirty coffeehouse swindle". Then he will go on complaining and sitting on his plump pile of crusty ideas, a sunk cost fallacy of his prior investment into a crusty old strategy optimized for OTB play. He will never change anything. He will never develop the metacognitive introspective awareness that maybe his approach could be better. No, none of this. He is a committed chess miser for life.

Warm regards, Burrower 🙏

#11
@SoWeakAtThis
quote:
"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!"

There are opening principles, understanding them is far more important than actual learning opening lines IMO.

it may reduce the fun to just play memorized lines.

Yeah, my focus is playing good chess and training. That‘s why my cap is somewhat 2300 and a few probably.

I agree that you can reach higher values (being more successful) if your focus is on speed. You have to sell your BS (sry! :D) quickly.

PS: not few have noticed that many play Blitz and Rapid in Bullet speed. Why?

You should join the 45+45 Team league in Lichess for some longer time control fun! We have hundreds participating each season.

I don't like t45 @jg777. Tried it for several seasons, really hated it by the end. I wish it would die so that pool of players could move on to a different idea - like joining the random pool of long games instead.

Why do you hate it?

@Burrower: After reading #12, I suddenly have an urge to find the Nash equilibrium for speed chess games.

I completely agree with Sarg0n
I am often up a queen in bullet/blitz, but simply run out of time - I also do think I'm better OTB

@clousems You are clearly a wise man. There is hope for you. I regard you as a board brother.

Warm regards, Burrower 🙏