because of speed chess, i had no interest in the game for decades. Then I found this site and realized many people play longer games and I've found my "sweet spot" to be around 12 minutes. i think bullet is just like call of duty, to me at least. just fast thinking and fun if you get lucky. if the game's too long, then it's almost impossible to beat a great player, and if it's too short I simply have no idea. speed is probably more fun, but i've never called it chess. but, whatever floats your boat.
I watch a lot of 10-0 and see many games finish in under 5-0 time. I agree with the sentiment of "what's the hurry?"
Here's a 10+0 game where I dropped my queen (26 ACPL)... it's possible to play slowly without quality:
Has it ever occurred to you guys who speak of bullet and blitz as “not real chess” that maybe you just don’t like it? Or perhaps you are too slow? And that is not an insult, maybe you can learn to be faster, but don’t want to. Kinda like you prefer an SUV, you will never beat a Porsche, but you never wanted to. You can buy a faster car, but don’t want one. So your SUV is too slow, but it’s not an insult. Your SUV fits more stuff, is safer, and has more room. But Porchse is still a car. Sure, it breaks down more than a Lexus SUV, sure it has very limited practicality, but it’s still a car. So why call bullet not real chess? Clearly it’s exactly chess.
Where you do start to have a point is 15 seconds per game hyper bullet, because that game requires new set of skills not present even in 1 minute bullet. Notice that even amazing elite 1 minute bullet players do not play 8 seconds hyper bullet. Because they can’t. So perhaps we can say 15 seconds and under hyper bullet is different kind of chess. But it’s still chess. Even if you are too slow to play it, there is no need to disrespect those who like it.
Where you do start to have a point is 15 seconds per game hyper bullet, because that game requires new set of skills not present even in 1 minute bullet. Notice that even amazing elite 1 minute bullet players do not play 8 seconds hyper bullet. Because they can’t. So perhaps we can say 15 seconds and under hyper bullet is different kind of chess. But it’s still chess. Even if you are too slow to play it, there is no need to disrespect those who like it.
@Kusokosla I think what is implied by "real chess" is frail-geek-nerd understanding of the game. How to play theory, how to play in specific structures, when to exchange pieces, etc.. Whereas in 3-0, and bullet, a bag of dirty tricks and lots of tactics gets one to 2400-2500 [on lichess]. Whereas, in real life it certainly does not.
In post #12 I presented an alternative view of speed chess based in rationality. I tried to explain this from first principles and fluff it out nicely to address various points that were raised by @Sarg0n , rather than participating in the torrent of sweeping generalisations.
Usually on a forum, opening posts should be an invitation to discuss the topic. To share our own ideas and to learn new perspectives, in the interest of becoming more knowledgeable. In this case, better players too. If we are only using a forum to rigidly repeat the same message again and again, there's little more point to participating here than there is to shouting into an empty broom closet.
Reading through this thread, it seems that the agenda of 90% of participants so far is to repeat the same opinions and reinforce each others preexisting attitudes like an echo chamber, rather than being open to new ways of thinking.
Of course, notable exceptions include dearest @SoWeakAtThis, humble nash equilibrist @clousems and wise contrarian @Toadofsky - who shows with humorous self deprecation that even slow chess games can be of low quality.
In my original post, I parodied the speedchess loathing player, by saying:
"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"... He's committed to his hoarding of preconceived ideas... He would never trade them in, even if it meant winning 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 pile of ideas, a sunk cost fallacy of his prior investment into a crusty old strategy optimized for OTB play... He will never develop the awareness that maybe his approach could be better... He is a committed chess miser for life."
I am sad to say that while this was initially meant as the grotesque caricature of an attitude stretched to it's limits, it has sadly proven to be true in this thread. The chess miser does indeed seem committed to his view for life.
The real harm of course, is only to his chess. Close mindedness is a protective mechanism that makes us feel right and certain about our current way of doing things. However, one must be careful about the mental model he overlays onto a topic. Some models permit learning, while others completely obstruct it. In this case, mental inflexibility blocks the input of new information that could greatly enhance a persons play, as well as the potential happiness he derives from this wonderful game.
Where there is currently crabbiness, I wish instead for all of you to see rationality, science and a curious avenue for exploration.
Warm regards, Burrower 🙏
Usually on a forum, opening posts should be an invitation to discuss the topic. To share our own ideas and to learn new perspectives, in the interest of becoming more knowledgeable. In this case, better players too. If we are only using a forum to rigidly repeat the same message again and again, there's little more point to participating here than there is to shouting into an empty broom closet.
Reading through this thread, it seems that the agenda of 90% of participants so far is to repeat the same opinions and reinforce each others preexisting attitudes like an echo chamber, rather than being open to new ways of thinking.
Of course, notable exceptions include dearest @SoWeakAtThis, humble nash equilibrist @clousems and wise contrarian @Toadofsky - who shows with humorous self deprecation that even slow chess games can be of low quality.
In my original post, I parodied the speedchess loathing player, by saying:
"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"... He's committed to his hoarding of preconceived ideas... He would never trade them in, even if it meant winning 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 pile of ideas, a sunk cost fallacy of his prior investment into a crusty old strategy optimized for OTB play... He will never develop the awareness that maybe his approach could be better... He is a committed chess miser for life."
I am sad to say that while this was initially meant as the grotesque caricature of an attitude stretched to it's limits, it has sadly proven to be true in this thread. The chess miser does indeed seem committed to his view for life.
The real harm of course, is only to his chess. Close mindedness is a protective mechanism that makes us feel right and certain about our current way of doing things. However, one must be careful about the mental model he overlays onto a topic. Some models permit learning, while others completely obstruct it. In this case, mental inflexibility blocks the input of new information that could greatly enhance a persons play, as well as the potential happiness he derives from this wonderful game.
Where there is currently crabbiness, I wish instead for all of you to see rationality, science and a curious avenue for exploration.
Warm regards, Burrower 🙏
@Burrower blablabaall here is the REAL Translation: Sargon got flaggered and WAAAAaaah
#36
But in slow chess plenty of players on all levels also employ dirty tricks and speed with very suspicious positional chess, if any. Tal and Jobova come to mind. After the game it is common for opponents they beat to find that they were simply tricked and Tal’s or Jobova’s quick intuitive combo was unsound. But it’s too late, the game is over.
Bronstein played ridiculous chess if one uses normal positional understanding, i mean, who moves the same knight 17’000 times in a row and ends up in a winning position? This goes against all laws of chess, but he did it.
Tricks and clock pressure are part of the game. Tal’s quote: “My aim is to lure my opponent into a deep forest where 2+2=5”
Tricks and tactics to get to 2500? Well, that’s a very complex claim. Don’t tactics and tricks, especially on that level of 2500 require positional backing? A tactic or a trick can not work unless backed up by a superior or at least a complex ripe with possibilities position. Again, I think it’s exactly like saying a Formula 1 racer isn’t a car because it’s unreliable, and you can’t fit 7 passengers in it. Ok, but it’s faster, and it is a real car. Just different.
But in slow chess plenty of players on all levels also employ dirty tricks and speed with very suspicious positional chess, if any. Tal and Jobova come to mind. After the game it is common for opponents they beat to find that they were simply tricked and Tal’s or Jobova’s quick intuitive combo was unsound. But it’s too late, the game is over.
Bronstein played ridiculous chess if one uses normal positional understanding, i mean, who moves the same knight 17’000 times in a row and ends up in a winning position? This goes against all laws of chess, but he did it.
Tricks and clock pressure are part of the game. Tal’s quote: “My aim is to lure my opponent into a deep forest where 2+2=5”
Tricks and tactics to get to 2500? Well, that’s a very complex claim. Don’t tactics and tricks, especially on that level of 2500 require positional backing? A tactic or a trick can not work unless backed up by a superior or at least a complex ripe with possibilities position. Again, I think it’s exactly like saying a Formula 1 racer isn’t a car because it’s unreliable, and you can’t fit 7 passengers in it. Ok, but it’s faster, and it is a real car. Just different.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.