Why do the top rated players who use this site mostly play bullet and blitz games?

Some people also think it's harder to use engines at the faster time controls.

It’s better to play 100 classic games than 100 Blitz, sure. But how to do? I play more or less solely 5+0, this enables me to scan lots of areas and a decent level one can reach.

@sarg0n would you advice weaker players to do the same and play a lots of blitz games, or play fewer rapid games and analyse them afterwards?

Play some games and analyze them. The more, the better. The longer, the better. No bullet, because pokering with pre-moves, try to be faster from move 1, other time-related issues, is counterproductive.

If blitz was good for improvement all would be GMs. All these things said about how good blitz are good for those who play classical chess and study seriously, for all the rest blitz is harmful. Imagine 2 guys. One is eating healthy 6 days a week and every Sunday he eats a pizza. The other guy eats junk food all week and he too eats a pizza every Sunday. For the first guy eating a pizza is fine. For the second guy eating pizza can make things worst , it can't make them better.

Weaker players must determine their deficiencies in their thinking process and to do that they need to think and do thinking mistakes. They need to play long time control games anlyse them on their own and discuss them with better players. You only need to fix just one thing after every gamer to become an expert in 3-4 years(faster if you study) but the problem is that you can't find what to fix without an accurate diagnosis of your "dicease". A weak player has to identify not only the mistakes but most importantly the reasons and to do that he needs to make thinking mistakes not mistakes because of inadequate thinking time.

All the rest about blitz are said(most of them) from those who simply don't want to admit that they only waste their time and they want to lure all others in doing the same mistake. Very important trainers of the past (Averbakh, Nezhmetdinov , Botvinnik, Dvoretsky) believed that blitz has absolutely no instructive value(exception is the so called "endgame targeted blitz") and Nezhmetdinov( a guy that became Tal's second after Tal's personal request) even called idiot everyone who tries to analyse a blitz game. GM Gustafson thinks that even rapid doesn't deserve serious analysis and Svidler said that "if you want to learn correct chess the last 2 minutes of a blitz game is not something you must watch".And he was talking for superGM games. Imagine what happens with lower rated players.

In my opinion this „Blitz is evil“ myth is completely out of date. You are playing miniaturized games which reveal much about your opening repertoire, your tactical prowess, endgame technique under time pressure. Old myths die hard.

Play a couple of Blitz games, look at some crucial points, check the opening against a decent source like a database and you will have done more than you think. I strongly recommend this to get a feeling for opening and a test for your practical technique overall.

Every chess players from noob to GM, in fact all super-GMs play training blitz.

Pizza = superfood.. That's what I got out of this thread. Thx for the advice!

i still dont get the pizza thing

Yes, they are all idiots.All GMs and trainers that created top GMs and world champions. All fallen victims of a myth.They had that amazing training tool just in front of their eyes but no one discovered it. What are the odds of that?

Here is what Dvoretsky said:

Annotating rapid games (those played with a reduced time control) and, even more so, blitz games, is a fairly pointless exercise....... What's more important is the complete absence in rapid chess of any interesting, deep ideas that can only be created through immersion in a position, for which there simply isn't time in a speed game.

Dvoretsky victim of a myth he never bothered to examine, right?

Here is what Kramnik said:

"Playing rapid chess, one can lose the habit of concentrating for several hours in serious chess. That is why, if a player has big aims, he should limit his rapid play in favour of serious chess."

Kramnik also a victim of a myth. How convenient!

Blitz can be a tool but ONLY if it is combined with a lot of longer games , analysis and a lot of study. When blitz takes most of a player's or a student's time it is harmful and for weak players that must develop a proper thinking process it is even more harmful.

I don't doubt we all here try to help. I don't doubt that we all have good intentions. But labeling as "myth" what great players and trainers have said because it is convenient is simply misleading. If nothing else, we owe to take their words into serious consideration.

True, but its also true learning chess is different now. You can play in blitz an opening you don't know very well, and then immediately look up from a database what you *should* have done and also see some large number of super-GM games in the same opening, and so can quickly absorb the general ideas of the opening. Repeat this a hundred times (which you can do on 3 min or 5 min games) and then you are well on the way to understanding the opening well enough to play it in long-play.

I agree blitz by itself can never teach someone to play long-play chess; blitz puts a premium on cheapo tactics and its hard to develop deep strategic ideas, plus attacks that are sensible in blitz can be entirely unsound once the defender has enough time to think. But blitz does allow an overview of the entire game that is hard to get if you only play long play chess - its much easier to try out openings and play unfamiliar systems without it really counting.

I wish these similar resources had been around when I was 10 - 15 and really cared about my chess (I'm 38 now); it would have made me a much stronger player.