Im not good chess player, but using my logic i think that ( i have right to do so? ) blitz can develop calculation speed. Which is really useful in classical cause even tho you have much more time, it doesn't mean you cant get into time trouble
They play online for fun..
@piscatorox
You really can't be serious. For the kids back then Averbakh and Botvinnik were not good enough to analyze their games? Why none of them employed blitz as a training tool? If it is so good as you say it is why not analyze blitz games?
Kids today don't become GMs earlier because they play blitz. They become GMs earlier because they have more tough opponents and more tournaments to play. Caruana in his interview said he moved in Europe for 10 years and he played in almost every open tournament he could find(almost 100 games every year). In Kasparov's days no one could play 100 games every year. Even Kasparov himself played 1 tournament in a lot of his active years. According to Caruana , playing so many games was what turned a promising player he was to a professional. Why Caruana didn't mention blitz? Kramnik recently mentioned the way he trains. He said he analyses every important game that is played. Why didn't he mention blitz? Svidler , just a few days ago , commenting in St louis rpaid and blitz said:
"If you want to learn correct chess , the last 2 minutes of a blitz game is not something you must watch"
So according to Svidler the last 2 minutes of a blitz is WRONG CHESS. And he was talking for the games of the best players of the world. How much is wrong in the games of amateurs or CMs like you?With every blitz game you play 2-4 minutes wrong chess!!!
In which era Svidler belongs?Jurassic? Is Svidler wrong too?
All the rest about time trouble are ridiculous and very surprising that they are coming from a CM. Time trouble has nothing to do with blitz. It has to do with the ability of a player to adapt in the transition from slow time to speed chess. That is an entirely different ability. I was very good in time trouble long before I start playing blitz and although I played alot of blitz that skill never actually improved. There are players that are very good in blitz but bad in time trouble. Nakamura , the best player today in blitz(or one of the best) did a ridiculous rookie mistake in time trouble against Nepomniatchi and he lost an easily drawn endgame. Why did that happen if blitz is so beneficial for time trouble?
Now for all kids out there. I am in a chess club and I have seen a very good FIDE certified trainer to work with kids. The kids that come to the chess club and follow his instructions and avoid or reduce blitz as much as possible go from nothing to 2200 literally in no time(2-3 years). The ones that play blitz on line and come to the chess club have serious problems improving and most of them hit a wall too early(yes, there are exceptions , but we are talking for 1 every 10 kids). Eventually they realise blitz is not the way , unfortunately it's too late.
I too was a lazy guy that believed the nonsense about the instructive value of blitz. And unfortunately I too was one that was trying to mislead people. I was wrong. Blitz is better than nothing if you are lazy but significantly worst than everything else. There is nothing you can learn in blitz that can't be learned with serious study and classical games. There were world champions and top GMs that never used blitz as training tool. And there are a lot of CMs and NMs that will remain all their life CMs and NMs because they play/ played a lot of blitz. I am one of them(yes , I am CM , and junior champion in my country, I just didn't bother to verify my title in Lichess).
You really can't be serious. For the kids back then Averbakh and Botvinnik were not good enough to analyze their games? Why none of them employed blitz as a training tool? If it is so good as you say it is why not analyze blitz games?
Kids today don't become GMs earlier because they play blitz. They become GMs earlier because they have more tough opponents and more tournaments to play. Caruana in his interview said he moved in Europe for 10 years and he played in almost every open tournament he could find(almost 100 games every year). In Kasparov's days no one could play 100 games every year. Even Kasparov himself played 1 tournament in a lot of his active years. According to Caruana , playing so many games was what turned a promising player he was to a professional. Why Caruana didn't mention blitz? Kramnik recently mentioned the way he trains. He said he analyses every important game that is played. Why didn't he mention blitz? Svidler , just a few days ago , commenting in St louis rpaid and blitz said:
"If you want to learn correct chess , the last 2 minutes of a blitz game is not something you must watch"
So according to Svidler the last 2 minutes of a blitz is WRONG CHESS. And he was talking for the games of the best players of the world. How much is wrong in the games of amateurs or CMs like you?With every blitz game you play 2-4 minutes wrong chess!!!
In which era Svidler belongs?Jurassic? Is Svidler wrong too?
All the rest about time trouble are ridiculous and very surprising that they are coming from a CM. Time trouble has nothing to do with blitz. It has to do with the ability of a player to adapt in the transition from slow time to speed chess. That is an entirely different ability. I was very good in time trouble long before I start playing blitz and although I played alot of blitz that skill never actually improved. There are players that are very good in blitz but bad in time trouble. Nakamura , the best player today in blitz(or one of the best) did a ridiculous rookie mistake in time trouble against Nepomniatchi and he lost an easily drawn endgame. Why did that happen if blitz is so beneficial for time trouble?
Now for all kids out there. I am in a chess club and I have seen a very good FIDE certified trainer to work with kids. The kids that come to the chess club and follow his instructions and avoid or reduce blitz as much as possible go from nothing to 2200 literally in no time(2-3 years). The ones that play blitz on line and come to the chess club have serious problems improving and most of them hit a wall too early(yes, there are exceptions , but we are talking for 1 every 10 kids). Eventually they realise blitz is not the way , unfortunately it's too late.
I too was a lazy guy that believed the nonsense about the instructive value of blitz. And unfortunately I too was one that was trying to mislead people. I was wrong. Blitz is better than nothing if you are lazy but significantly worst than everything else. There is nothing you can learn in blitz that can't be learned with serious study and classical games. There were world champions and top GMs that never used blitz as training tool. And there are a lot of CMs and NMs that will remain all their life CMs and NMs because they play/ played a lot of blitz. I am one of them(yes , I am CM , and junior champion in my country, I just didn't bother to verify my title in Lichess).
@Roper300 You know what? Your points are actually pretty decent. I think I can agree with most of the things that you're saying, even though I used to subscribe to the "Blitz is good for training" theory. I mean, if your only way to play chess is online blitz and for example you want to try a new opening, then yes, I guess it's better than nothing. Me still play blitz though :(
@Roper300
You cite a lot of strong players without thinking a lot about what they actually say.
E.g. the Svidler quote:
Svidler does not say that the last 2 minutes of a Blitz game are "WRONG CHESS". They are just not very important. You can do without them, but that does not logically imply that they will necessarily teach you wrong things.
More importantly, the flipside of the quote is that the first minutes of a Blitz game are different than the last two, right? Thus may actually be worthwhile. This is quite in accordance with the opinion of the CMs here who put emphasis on the usefulness of Blitz in getting some quick experience with an opening. Noone said that Blitz is the way to go to train endgames.
Too much focus on Blitz is dangerous, I think we all agree on that.
But the mode is not pure evil and can have some benefits if used sensibly.
If chess teaches you one thing, it's that every "rule" has exceptions!
You cite a lot of strong players without thinking a lot about what they actually say.
E.g. the Svidler quote:
Svidler does not say that the last 2 minutes of a Blitz game are "WRONG CHESS". They are just not very important. You can do without them, but that does not logically imply that they will necessarily teach you wrong things.
More importantly, the flipside of the quote is that the first minutes of a Blitz game are different than the last two, right? Thus may actually be worthwhile. This is quite in accordance with the opinion of the CMs here who put emphasis on the usefulness of Blitz in getting some quick experience with an opening. Noone said that Blitz is the way to go to train endgames.
Too much focus on Blitz is dangerous, I think we all agree on that.
But the mode is not pure evil and can have some benefits if used sensibly.
If chess teaches you one thing, it's that every "rule" has exceptions!
Without Blitz I couldn’t adapt new openings within a couple of months. I am flexible: I can play e4 and closed systems, learned it quite quickly. By the way, practicing openings by means of Blitz even teaches you the typical endgames.
That was roper300 points out is valid for me for ... bullet.
My recommendation stands: playing and analyzing, why not Blitz?
That was roper300 points out is valid for me for ... bullet.
My recommendation stands: playing and analyzing, why not Blitz?
@Roper300
We disagree. I'm not pushing blitz as a universal training tool - it is clearly limited - but I don't understand your hostility to it. In particular it seems to me the obviously correct thing to use if someone is taking up a new complex opening - say a KID player adding the Grunfeld to their repertoire - and wants to play 50 games in it before they use it for 'real'.
On other points:
100 games/year was not impossible in the late 80s/early 90s, I know because I hit it myself a couple of times. Weekend congresses had 5 or 6 games, club matches during the week and the occasional longer tournament such as national or international junior championships, and it all adds up pretty quickly. 100 games/year is not what made Caruana exceptional.
But any chess club that is taking multiple juniors from beginners to 2200 ELO in a few years exceptional - a quick check reveals that England (where I am) has about eight juniors above 2200 ELO, maybe this says more about the state of English chess but still...
I agree with Sargon, blitz is short enough to allow lots of games and to gain experience with a variety of openings, but long enough to be actual chess (unlike e.g. 1+0 bullet).
We disagree. I'm not pushing blitz as a universal training tool - it is clearly limited - but I don't understand your hostility to it. In particular it seems to me the obviously correct thing to use if someone is taking up a new complex opening - say a KID player adding the Grunfeld to their repertoire - and wants to play 50 games in it before they use it for 'real'.
On other points:
100 games/year was not impossible in the late 80s/early 90s, I know because I hit it myself a couple of times. Weekend congresses had 5 or 6 games, club matches during the week and the occasional longer tournament such as national or international junior championships, and it all adds up pretty quickly. 100 games/year is not what made Caruana exceptional.
But any chess club that is taking multiple juniors from beginners to 2200 ELO in a few years exceptional - a quick check reveals that England (where I am) has about eight juniors above 2200 ELO, maybe this says more about the state of English chess but still...
I agree with Sargon, blitz is short enough to allow lots of games and to gain experience with a variety of openings, but long enough to be actual chess (unlike e.g. 1+0 bullet).
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.