Who is smarter?

@Toscani #9 not necessarily.
The setup in #1 is impossible to determine.
We can't judge how smart (or better at chess) someone is, on rather or not they win a game, by comparing time limit to a no time limit.

For example:
It doesn't matter if I have a great winning position. If I don't also have enough time to play it.
Time is a big part of this game.
Otherwise we might as well play an infinite time correspondence game.

Infinite time is the only way to judge players insight on chess tactics.
Restrictions on the time is the only way to judge, how well the players manage the limited time available.

#1 is like trying to judging who has the most efficient usage of their legs?
A: the best ultra runner?
B: the fastest 100 meter sprinter?

Attention Management Skills vs Time Management Skills
Do a web search,for enlightenment. It might not talk about chess, but that's not the real point.
For starters, it's the only skills I gave each chess player. They are each lacking what the other has.
Is it not smarter to look at what the other player is doing, rather than just playing faster?
Anything else in the debate is assumptions. It was not part of the first post. But was great for discussion.

To play smarter chess, what must a player do?
Which management skill has priority?
How do the players take control of their game? With their skills....
Which skill wins more games? Look at your own Chess insights to answer than question.

With games less than 3 minutes, my games end more often with the Clock Flag. Since I don't like that. I play games with higher time controls where I can use my Attention Management Skills. I feel smarter with higher time controls and feel less smart with lower time controls.

The smart choice is picking the one that works best with your skills.

Grandmaster totally...

I feel like I am B so I will say B

@WassimBerbar said in #3:
> Chess Player A will do less blunders, but will be flagged.
> Chess Player B will do more blunders, but will be flagging.
>
> But smartness doesn't come with doing more blunders, so it's player A who wins this duel!

I't aggree. If you blunder, your game is over very quickly. If you don't blunder, you have simply much more chances to win or draw the game before running out of time in the end.

Quote from Ben Finegold: "You're low rated, because you blunder all your pieces..." (so => not because you lose on time)

EDIT: I just remember my coach saying: "Lose on time, not because of a blunder!" (I often play to fast in OTB league matches)

Have fun!

if you find yourself losing on time in won positions that's a much better position than those that win on time in lost positions.. i find myself more of a player a.. the older i get the slower i get