A would have the advantage obviously but if time control is very long it could be a draw
I think I am a perfect example of why blitz ratings can be deceiving. I lose way too many blitz games on time because my time management sucks, so I get down to my increment and either blunder or just lose on time. In a long game it would really matter who is better at playing at classical time controls between A and B. You cant really gauge much based on blitz ratings, other than to say that B simply doesnt play blitz as well as A. Long time controls are a totally different animal because you cant make sub par moves if your opponent is naturally a more slow player and hope to flag him.
if your like me youre smart but rather scramble brained and are mistake prone at times ..... in a rapid game where i have time to employ my brightness i do lots better so,, right time controls count....the IQ people would give to the quicker thinker...
the question depends on the context, the elo of the two people and several factors, but if we want to answer the question as is
, the answer is yes, considering that it is better to do something faster to obtain the same result therefore yes, and therefore a better performance in relation to the speed but not in relation to the result, to calculate a little more fast is a comfort, therefore better, but not by much because the result will be the same.
it's just a detail that doesn't matter, in most contexts have "equal" attribute
, the answer is yes, considering that it is better to do something faster to obtain the same result therefore yes, and therefore a better performance in relation to the speed but not in relation to the result, to calculate a little more fast is a comfort, therefore better, but not by much because the result will be the same.
it's just a detail that doesn't matter, in most contexts have "equal" attribute
In the history of chess matches between grandmasters, there have been many instances of one player falling behind on the clock. Where the position was even, the time difference could result in the slower player suddenly having to play too quickly for comfort.
Therefore the standard of play that had been the same for both suddenly differs, to the advantage of the quicker player. It follows that, in competitive play, someone who does not get into time trouble is more likely to be better overall than one who can only match the quality for three quarters of the game before having to blitz out moves to avoid a loss on time.
Therefore the standard of play that had been the same for both suddenly differs, to the advantage of the quicker player. It follows that, in competitive play, someone who does not get into time trouble is more likely to be better overall than one who can only match the quality for three quarters of the game before having to blitz out moves to avoid a loss on time.
@Davelz said in #25:
> In the history of chess matches between grandmasters, there have been many instances of one player falling behind on the clock. Where the position was even, the time difference could result in the slower player suddenly having to play too quickly for comfort.
> Therefore the standard of play that had been the same for both suddenly differs, to the advantage of the quicker player. It follows that, in competitive play, someone who does not get into time trouble is more likely to be better overall than one who can only match the quality for three quarters of the game before having to blitz out moves to avoid a loss on time.
This is certainly true if the slower player gets himself into time trouble at a longer time control. That said, a player like me who knows he is a slower player will tend to avoid blitz or rapid altogether if the event is rated. (The OTB rapid events here where I live tend to be 25/5 which I still think is too fast for my liking). At a classical time control such as 90/30, I don’t typically get into time trouble so it’s almost a non issue unless the tournament goes to tie-breaks. If I find myself in a rapid or blitz game tie break, I am absolutely vulnerable.
> In the history of chess matches between grandmasters, there have been many instances of one player falling behind on the clock. Where the position was even, the time difference could result in the slower player suddenly having to play too quickly for comfort.
> Therefore the standard of play that had been the same for both suddenly differs, to the advantage of the quicker player. It follows that, in competitive play, someone who does not get into time trouble is more likely to be better overall than one who can only match the quality for three quarters of the game before having to blitz out moves to avoid a loss on time.
This is certainly true if the slower player gets himself into time trouble at a longer time control. That said, a player like me who knows he is a slower player will tend to avoid blitz or rapid altogether if the event is rated. (The OTB rapid events here where I live tend to be 25/5 which I still think is too fast for my liking). At a classical time control such as 90/30, I don’t typically get into time trouble so it’s almost a non issue unless the tournament goes to tie-breaks. If I find myself in a rapid or blitz game tie break, I am absolutely vulnerable.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.