"Stronger players favor faster time controls". ++ True, they fear cheating.
"Blitz is a superior time format" ++ False. Blitz is for fun. The ability to play blitz well stems from intuition developed during over the board classical time control games and analysis.
Change it yourself, it's your mind.
Blitz is a fun way to pass the time, especially online. You can play a lot of sloppy, bad moves and still get away with it. It's a way to enjoy the game of chess, while avoiding the more serious work. The need for accuracy often flies out the window - especially in those final time scrambles.
Longer games are harder, more grueling. Higher quality of moves; greater risk of being punished for even the smallest inaccuracies ... Even one single inaccuracy can mean the difference between a win, a draw, or a loss. You could play the whole game excellently, but slip up on a single move - and you're done. These are the more serious, tournament games.
I'd argue that classical chess leads to superior moves. But blitz chess leads to superior fun. 
they favor it cause its fun although it doesn't necessarily show much conversion or technique
Why don't you try to change my mind on how the amazon is the most powerful chess piece?
(It's not intended to be condescending, perhaps you could try to form some kind of argument that would change my mind.)
On the topic of Blitz being the best time control, though, I think Rapid is better because you have more time to make more accurate moves, and it isn't dependant on who plays faster, but rather who plays better. Of course, to each their own.
Blitz is a fun way to pass the time, especially online. You can play a lot of sloppy, bad moves and still get away with it. It's a way to enjoy the game of chess, while avoiding the more serious work. The need for accuracy often flies out the window - especially in those final time scrambles.
Longer games are harder, more grueling. Higher quality of moves; greater risk of being punished for even the smallest inaccuracies ... Even one single inaccuracy can mean the difference between a win, a draw, or a loss. You could play the whole game excellently, but slip up on a single move - and you're done. These are the more serious, tournament games.
I'd argue that classical chess leads to superior moves. But blitz chess leads to superior fun.
Agreed, it's definitely more fun.
I'd argue that Blitz also requires a more refined understanding of opening theory and tactics, because weaknesses in those areas are very quickly exposed under time pressure.
Agreed, it's definitely more fun.
I'd argue that Blitz also requires a more refined understanding of opening theory and tactics, because weaknesses in those areas are very quickly exposed under time pressure.
Yes, true. I'm more of a positional player, by nature.
But playing a lot of blitz has forced me to become more tactically aware, from necessity - else I won't be able to survive.
I'd argue that Blitz also requires a more refined understanding of opening theory and tactics, because weaknesses in those areas are very quickly exposed under time pressure.
I agree.
I have never lost at Blitz because of my great understanding of opening theory.
Play Longer Time Controls...
For many at the beginner-novice level, speed chess tends to be primarily an exercise in moving pieces around faster than your opponent while avoiding checkmate, in hopes that his/her clock runs out sooner than yours. And/or hoping to notice and exploit your opponent’s blunders while hoping they don't notice yours. The reason for this is that in speed chess there is little time to think about what you should be doing.
It makes sense that taking more time to think about what you should be doing would promote improvement in your chess skills and results. An effective way to improve your chess is therefore to play mostly longer time controls, including "daily" chess, so you have time to think about what you should be doing.
This is not to suggest that you should necessarily play exclusively slow or daily time controls, but they should be a significant percentage of your games, at least as much, if not more so than speed games which, while they may be fun, do almost nothing to promote an understanding of how to play the game well.
Here's what IM Jeremy Silman, well-known chess book author, has to say on the topic...
https://www.chess.com/article/view/longer-time-controls-are-more-instructive
And Dan Heisman, well-known chess teacher and chess book author…
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627052239/http:/www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman16.pdf
https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/dan-heisman-resources
and the experience of a FIDE Master...
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/how-blitz-and-bullet-rotted-my-brain-don-t-let-it-rot-yours
Learn what you should be doing...
Improving Your Chess - Resources for Beginners and Beyond
https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/improving-your-chess-resources-for-beginners-and-beyond
https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell
Yeah it's superior... superior to bullet.
Agreed, it's definitely more fun.
I'd argue that Blitz also requires a more refined understanding of opening theory and tactics, because weaknesses in those areas are very quickly exposed under time pressure.
It is true that a lot of knowledge of opening theory and a good memory influence a lot in blitz, however blitz games do not necessarily show if a player is very good or bad in openings, since the ability to play openings very well with reflection and analysis that is not used in blitz is still a sign of a good level in the openings; Also players playing bad openings get away with it and at slower times they are unable to survive the openings and with low tactical level as well. A good memory in opening theory doesn't mean you're good at opening either, and in blitz everyone plays a bunch of incoherent opening lines where both sides make embarrassing mistakes or inaccuracies, all this not excluding the GMs.
In tactics there are skills that are exploited in classic games and not in lightning games, how to anticipate tactical situations through calculation to later take advantage of positional superiority and win by tactical threats or tactical blows. There are players who are good at weaving tactical situations to their advantage in classical games, but are not very good at playing a high level of tactics in blitz. Again, this is all the same even with GMs.
Yes blitz is a superior time format compared to bullet
He gets it
@DejaDeJugarBlitz Why do you believe that Blitz players inherently make incoherent moves? The time element forces you to have your lines memorized to perfection. This naturally produces very strong moves that are absolutely in line with theory. Of course, the level of play and strength is a big factor too. If we're talking about a 1500 game then I'll agree with you, but once you get higher up the playing field changes, dramatically.
Nothing to do with what you say, in fact not even from 1500 and below, but more or less from 1750 and below what becomes more frequent is that the games are a race of time from beginning to end since there is a lack of many concepts will have almost no patterns or those patterns will not be so clear or sufficient. On the other hand, everything I have said in my previous comment to this one applies to amateur with a certain level and understanding of the game's ability, it will continue to apply to 2700 (of FIDE rating) and above. You just have to watch live games of GMs as they deal with each situation in each different time mode.
There are even players who suffer a lot from 3 minute blitz against the same player and when they switch to 5 minute blitz they start crushing their opponent in the vast majority of games, this happens regardless of whether they are amateurs or GMs. So with that it is difficult to ask which of the two players is really better in blitz. Isn't the blitz supposed to show the flaws in the openings and tactics of these players?
@DejaDeJugarBlitz You are very assertive and confident about your opinion, yet seemingly don't have a lot of experience playing Blitz, especially at a higher level. 3min chess forces you to memorize countless variations and transpositions ranging from the opening all the way to the middle or even endgame. This gets far more intense with higher rated players. Watch GMs playing Blitz and check the analysis how many book or best moves were played, it's like a different dimension of chess. Comparatively, the only real difference between your 1900 and my 2300 rating is the amount of openings and move orders that we have memorized. How many openings do you know and to what degree have you studied them?
If what you say stays in 3-minute blitz games without an increase, it forces you more to memorize openings. But compare that to 3+2 blitz or 5 minute blitz and it doesn't force memorization as much as you want to say. What is true is that blitz games are very good for reviewing and improving your openings, but you do that without playing 3+2 blitz, with 5 minute blitz, with 10 minute quick games you can also do exactly that by working on your openings. What you say about the openings with the blitz is a use that you can give it, but it is not exclusive as a means to learn openings.
On the other hand, the virtue of practicing openings that 3-minute blitz has is almost the only good thing it has, and you also get that with other modalities of time. While other longer time modalities force you to calculate better and better understand tactical patterns. As for the tactics with 3-minute blitz, if you take advantage of the high tactical level, but still without a good tactical level, there are people who have reached quite high rankings playing 3-minute blitz.
Another negative point to point out is that if you are trying to practice openings, your memory will work better if you do it with a more relaxed rhythm of time like 5 minutes, which is not slow at all and is also a good way to memorize opening variants.
In addition, at the same time you maintain additional time to put into practice themes from the other phases of the game.
For online chess blitz is definitely a better format. It helps you avoid cheaters and enables you to play more games and openings for practice. Shorter time controls help maintain concentration when you aren't in an IRL tournament room where you can walk around, at least for me. Blitz is definitely great for fun IRL as well. I do think that Classical IRL is still the best format in terms of competing for real ratings and titles and playing more well-thought and rewarding games because you have time to think and have less fluctuation of playing strength and time-affected games. Generally I just think that both Blitz and Classical have important but different places in chess.
Q: Do stronger players favor faster time controls?