Quick games or slow games?

I think it really depends on your goal. Is your goal to get better at classical chess, where games often last hours? If so, then deep calculation and slow games might help. Also, it will train your patience.

However, for a casual player who often doesn't have time for slow games, fast time controls like Blitz and Rapid, or even Bullet if you can manage it, are okay.

The important thing is to analyze your games afterwards to understand where you made mistakes and what to improve.

@Yrtemoeg said in #1:
> I wonder what is the best path to getting better at chess? Quick games or slow games?

Classical everytime to improve, thinking about your response , it's the way the game was invented and for , lazy Sunday afternoon by the fireside with a scotch and cigar with your father in law ............. Some will cry bull but that's how I romanticize it xxx

I think that this website chessmood.com/?r=skywalker will help you in making right choice between quick and slow chess so just sign up and find out yourself trust me it is worth it to sign up in this website.

@Yrtemoeg said in #7:
> I have a lot of trouble playing the Sicilian and Pirc. It seems white always ends up with these outposts or I get a cramped e5,d5 centre or a bad queen's bishop or my queenside pressure is too slow. And I can never get a centre break it seems. Is there a Sicilian variation or Pirc variation that answers these issues?

Do you mean playing Sicilian as Black? It is supposed to be the most active reply to e4 (maybe Scandinavian?) so I can't really understand your issues... Could you post an example game?

@OctoPinky said in #14:
> Do you mean playing Sicilian as Black? It is supposed to be the most active reply to e4 (maybe Scandinavian?) so I can't really understand your issues... Could you post an example game?

As black. I can't show examples. Files lost. But I always seem to drift into a Scheveningen type position in the centre after a Najdorf start . The queen bishop is blocked in and I can't make a break in the centre. I have an aversion to e5 (some time after e6). Doesn't that leave d6 as a backward pawn and d5 as a hole?

People know too much theory in Sicilian too. Reams of opening theory and white has so many nasty attacking options. I often feel that "play Sicilian" is the advice booked-up players give who love destroying Sicilian with white.

But if you can suggest a Sicilian variant, of Scheveningen maybe, which puts the QB on a useful square and can lead to effective pawn breaks, I would look at it.

Currently, I lean to Caro-Kann just because people down at my level seem to know less opening theory about it (not that I know much). Or I just play e5 to e4.

Mostly, I am just doing puzzles to try and get some basic tactical ability. My calculation is really bad. Seems pointless going too deep into openings yet but it is nice to know 6 moves or so just to bang them out. There's not enough material on the plans of openings. Reaching the end of a memorised line is pointless if I have no plan.

@Yrtemoeg said in #15:
> I have an aversion to e5 (some time after e6). Doesn't that leave d6 as a backward pawn and d5 as a hole?
>
> But if you can suggest a Sicilian variant, of Scheveningen maybe, which puts the QB on a useful square and can lead to effective pawn breaks, I would look at it.

Try the Sveshnikov: you play e5 without e6, and then d6, so your QB is no longer locked. A nice amount of theory, though, and a few traps to avoid. And still you'll probably have that hole in d5.

Anyway, Sicilian is in itself a risky choice: you want to fight just from the start and that means giving offensive opportunities to White.

@Yrtemoeg said in #15:
> Reaching the end of a memorised line is pointless if I have no plan.

You're totally right, as a beginner I think studying openings is important not to get a long memorized line, but to avoid early mistakes, and knowing what kind of game lies ahead.

"As a professional player, I participate in many opens. I need at least 7.5/9 for the first place so I have little margin for mistakes. ... It suffices to mention the 6.Bg5-attack with forced variations all the way up to move thirty or more, to understand my reluctance to use the Najdorf. ... The Dragon is even more unfit for a main repertoire. The same long narrow forced variations, many dead drawn endgames in some lines without h4, and on top of all - the unbearable sight of the d5-square, where one White piece replaces another. ... As for the Classical system, it has been sliding downhill for years. Now every one knows that White should choose the Rauzer attack 6.Bg5, castle queenside and enjoy the better position. ... The permanent hole on d5 makes the centre static and dooms the Sveshnikov to be poor on strategical ideas. ... GM Grischuk and many top players also think that the fame of the Scheveningen of the times of K-K matches has faded." - GM Alexander Delchev (2006)

Slow games are much better, I like 90+30.

10+0 is the shortest time control you should be playing if you want to see results. Playing 3+0 or bullet will just teach you bad habits.