Which one is it -- the other platform defines it as Blitz while here it falls under Rapid...
Should it be Blitz or stay as Rapid?
Should it be Blitz or stay as Rapid?
Blitz category is better for 5+5
I think the increment is too generous to call it blitz.
even 5+3 doesnt feel much like blitz anymore, so ...
I agree with that @Cedur216 . After playing a lot of 3+0 and 3+2 I started playing some 5+3 and I felt like I had soooo much time to think and avoid blunders.
As a rule of thumb every second is like adding an extra minute to your clock.
5 (+5) = 10 minute game. If both players use the increments, then the game could last 20 minutes.
I still don't understand why our games must be rated by time given, rather than by time used.
By time used we would have only one rating. The rating system would adjust according to the median time used per move for each player. Maybe one day a chess site will add this to their present rating system and it will be a new era for chess rated players.
----------------------------3+2 Rule of thumb ----------------------------------------
5 (+0) is a Bullet game, but I prefer 2 min (+3 sec) or 3 min (+2 sec).
10 (+0) is about double 3 (+2) = 6 (+4). I prefer 7 (+3).
25 (+0) is about five times 3 (+2) = 15 min (+10 sec) Rapid game.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increment time controls make category naming complex. Today rated players need more a rating that is constant, no matter the speed of the game. This is why I think ratings need to be calculated per move time and not game time.
5 (+5) = 10 minute game. If both players use the increments, then the game could last 20 minutes.
I still don't understand why our games must be rated by time given, rather than by time used.
By time used we would have only one rating. The rating system would adjust according to the median time used per move for each player. Maybe one day a chess site will add this to their present rating system and it will be a new era for chess rated players.
----------------------------3+2 Rule of thumb ----------------------------------------
5 (+0) is a Bullet game, but I prefer 2 min (+3 sec) or 3 min (+2 sec).
10 (+0) is about double 3 (+2) = 6 (+4). I prefer 7 (+3).
25 (+0) is about five times 3 (+2) = 15 min (+10 sec) Rapid game.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increment time controls make category naming complex. Today rated players need more a rating that is constant, no matter the speed of the game. This is why I think ratings need to be calculated per move time and not game time.
@Toscani said in #6:
> As a rule of thumb every second is like adding an extra minute to your clock.
> 5 (+5) = 10 minute game. If both players use the increments, then the game could last 20 minutes.
>
> I still don't understand why our games must be rated by time given, rather than by time used.
> By time used we would have only one rating. The rating system would adjust according to the median time used per move for each player. Maybe one day a chess site will add this to their present rating system and it will be a new era for chess rated players.
>
> ----------------------------3+2 Rule of thumb ----------------------------------------
> 5 (+0) is a Bullet game, but I prefer 2 min (+3 sec) or 3 min (+2 sec).
> 10 (+0) is about double 3 (+2) = 6 (+4). I prefer 7 (+3).
> 25 (+0) is about five times 3 (+2) = 15 min (+10 sec) Rapid game.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Increment time controls make category naming complex. Today rated players need more a rating that is constant, no matter the speed of the game. This is why I think ratings need to be calculated per move time and not game time.
So 10 mins is Blitz according to FIDE, right -- as Rapid is for more than 10 mins and less than 60 mins?
Here on lichess Blitz upper limits are: 0+11 [11] / 1+10 [11] / 2+8 [10] / 3+7 [10] / 4+5 [9] / 5+4 [9] / 6+2 [8] / 7+1 [8]
An inconsistency perhaps in the realm of Chess, or exceptional cases?
> As a rule of thumb every second is like adding an extra minute to your clock.
> 5 (+5) = 10 minute game. If both players use the increments, then the game could last 20 minutes.
>
> I still don't understand why our games must be rated by time given, rather than by time used.
> By time used we would have only one rating. The rating system would adjust according to the median time used per move for each player. Maybe one day a chess site will add this to their present rating system and it will be a new era for chess rated players.
>
> ----------------------------3+2 Rule of thumb ----------------------------------------
> 5 (+0) is a Bullet game, but I prefer 2 min (+3 sec) or 3 min (+2 sec).
> 10 (+0) is about double 3 (+2) = 6 (+4). I prefer 7 (+3).
> 25 (+0) is about five times 3 (+2) = 15 min (+10 sec) Rapid game.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Increment time controls make category naming complex. Today rated players need more a rating that is constant, no matter the speed of the game. This is why I think ratings need to be calculated per move time and not game time.
So 10 mins is Blitz according to FIDE, right -- as Rapid is for more than 10 mins and less than 60 mins?
Here on lichess Blitz upper limits are: 0+11 [11] / 1+10 [11] / 2+8 [10] / 3+7 [10] / 4+5 [9] / 5+4 [9] / 6+2 [8] / 7+1 [8]
An inconsistency perhaps in the realm of Chess, or exceptional cases?
Terminology Blitz, an overwhelming unexpected sudden attack during a chess game. It happens with sacrifices. No time limit should have been associated to the term, but chess players have tried to do that.
There is no such thing as being on time, so there is no such thing as exact time parameters for a blitz game. Being set in our ways is not always a good thing. We must remain flexable to terminology or else terminology nolonger has it's place.
With a chess world that now uses increment time, the exact time it ends is nolonger determinable. There are some that don't want to be forced into any situation, like using increment time, but it's the main direction that OTB chess tournaments are now using, except for the ones that want to stick with the old ways. Which seems old fasioned to me. Why stick with the old ways, when the new ways are positive improvements to the game?
As soon as we play a blitz move, the position becomes overwhelming, one must come up with a reasonable solution. With little time to ponder, it's hard to believe that an accurate move can be found. What's the root cause? Playing too fast for a solid solution.
For me, a chess blitz game is an exhibition. When playing OTB with 90 minute / 40 move time controls, each move would be about 2.25 minutes (135 seconds) moves long, which could have been considered boring for an exibition. So I assume someone came up with the idea of playing a complete game within 135 seconds. So someone picked 3 minutes and above for a Blitz game. Just because someone says something, does not mean it's a fact. The source and reason for something must be known before we can say it must be a standard to maintain.
There is no such thing as being on time, so there is no such thing as exact time parameters for a blitz game. Being set in our ways is not always a good thing. We must remain flexable to terminology or else terminology nolonger has it's place.
With a chess world that now uses increment time, the exact time it ends is nolonger determinable. There are some that don't want to be forced into any situation, like using increment time, but it's the main direction that OTB chess tournaments are now using, except for the ones that want to stick with the old ways. Which seems old fasioned to me. Why stick with the old ways, when the new ways are positive improvements to the game?
As soon as we play a blitz move, the position becomes overwhelming, one must come up with a reasonable solution. With little time to ponder, it's hard to believe that an accurate move can be found. What's the root cause? Playing too fast for a solid solution.
For me, a chess blitz game is an exhibition. When playing OTB with 90 minute / 40 move time controls, each move would be about 2.25 minutes (135 seconds) moves long, which could have been considered boring for an exibition. So I assume someone came up with the idea of playing a complete game within 135 seconds. So someone picked 3 minutes and above for a Blitz game. Just because someone says something, does not mean it's a fact. The source and reason for something must be known before we can say it must be a standard to maintain.
@Toscani said in #8:
> Terminology Blitz, an overwhelming unexpected sudden attack during a chess game. It happens with sacrifices. No time limit should have been associated to the term, but chess players have tried to do that.
>
> There is no such thing as being on time, so there is no such thing as exact time parameters for a blitz game. Being set in our ways is not always a good thing. We must remain flexable to terminology or else terminology nolonger has it's place.
>
> With a chess world that now uses increment time, the exact time it ends is nolonger determinable. There are some that don't want to be forced into any situation, like using increment time, but it's the main direction that OTB chess tournaments are now using, except for the ones that want to stick with the old ways. Which seems old fasioned to me. Why stick with the old ways, when the new ways are positive improvements to the game?
>
> As soon as we play a blitz move, the position becomes overwhelming, one must come up with a reasonable solution. What's the root cause? Playing too fast.
>
> For me, a chess blitz game is an exhibition. When playing OTB with 90 minute / 40 move time controls, each move would be about 2.25 minutes (135 seconds) moves long, which could have been considered boring for an exibition. So I assume someone came up with the idea of playing a complete game within 135 seconds. So someone picked 3 minutes and above for a Blitz game. Just because someone says something, does not mean it's a fact. The source and reason for something must be known before we can say it must be a standard to maintain.
So what do we do: 5+5 = Blitz or Rapid?
> Terminology Blitz, an overwhelming unexpected sudden attack during a chess game. It happens with sacrifices. No time limit should have been associated to the term, but chess players have tried to do that.
>
> There is no such thing as being on time, so there is no such thing as exact time parameters for a blitz game. Being set in our ways is not always a good thing. We must remain flexable to terminology or else terminology nolonger has it's place.
>
> With a chess world that now uses increment time, the exact time it ends is nolonger determinable. There are some that don't want to be forced into any situation, like using increment time, but it's the main direction that OTB chess tournaments are now using, except for the ones that want to stick with the old ways. Which seems old fasioned to me. Why stick with the old ways, when the new ways are positive improvements to the game?
>
> As soon as we play a blitz move, the position becomes overwhelming, one must come up with a reasonable solution. What's the root cause? Playing too fast.
>
> For me, a chess blitz game is an exhibition. When playing OTB with 90 minute / 40 move time controls, each move would be about 2.25 minutes (135 seconds) moves long, which could have been considered boring for an exibition. So I assume someone came up with the idea of playing a complete game within 135 seconds. So someone picked 3 minutes and above for a Blitz game. Just because someone says something, does not mean it's a fact. The source and reason for something must be known before we can say it must be a standard to maintain.
So what do we do: 5+5 = Blitz or Rapid?
Why categorize a time control? Cause it affects the rating. Why is the rating affected? Because the formula is not taking into consideration the time used. So why make categories? Because some players want to stick to the old ways of doing things.
Obviously the time control fits in both places. So you call it what you want.
Is the time control good for a rapid blitz attack, most likely.
Blitz or Rapid are just names, which have no exact moment in time. Look up the definition.
I think the terms in chess should come from military terminology.
Blitzkrieg, "rapid attack."
Obviously the time control fits in both places. So you call it what you want.
Is the time control good for a rapid blitz attack, most likely.
Blitz or Rapid are just names, which have no exact moment in time. Look up the definition.
I think the terms in chess should come from military terminology.
Blitzkrieg, "rapid attack."
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.