Bullet vs. Rapid Why would a beginner play bullet ?

If time between moves is the difference,

a)   why would a beginner play bullet w/out an above average understanding about openings, tactics & endgames ??

b)   am I shorting or hurting myself by playing 30 min. games against real players where I can see my games analyzed (good moves, bad moves, better moves) ??

Thanks for your generous consideration,

Steph  (Louisiana)   Chess.com "Rating"  (920) but between 850 - 920 really

a) I play bullet because I like to see how much annoyed I can become. Also, on a more serious note, I play bullet to distract myself from serious chess and to see how fast I can see squares/pieces and sometimes, tactics.

b) you're not shorting yourself. The usual recommendation is to play longer games for their instructive value. I... have my doubts as to how useful it can be if you're an absolute beginner, but at 850-920, you aren't truly an absolute beginner anymore, so you'll be deriving benefits from longer games.

Oh, I thought they started the scale for beginners around 900 or so.  Somehow I seem to remember when I logged on and set up my profile as a beginner they gave me about a 900 rating.  I've never played online chess before Nov. 2020.

Where can I see a break down of the different rating values ?

Thanks for your reply , sincerely,

Steph

900-950 in blitz, for instance is about percentile 50, so the mean, overall (assuming a standard distribution, which is not completely correct, but will still do). Overall, here on chess.com, i consider an absolute beginner to be below 500 in blitz or rapid. But that's just MY opinion

Thanks  wornaki !!

I like the 10 minute rapid games, blitz sometimes can be too fast (although it may/does help speed up ur brain and tactics). 30 minutes seems too long for me, I would stick to 10 minute for knowledge, you may not need the extra time.

Then once you get better you can try longer time controls. Honestly for me I only played like 1 30|30 game, and it was by accident, and I play 10|10 rapid.

In terms of ratings the 50% percentile is like -900 rapid something, which means it's for ACTIVE people (I think people who played in last 30 or 90 days, if you look at some people's profile you see the -- which means they have not played in that time control enough/recently enough). The active people is like + 12 million in rapid. You can get 1000 + rapid if you just grind and learn tactics like forks and fried liver, all that noobish stuff. The 90% percentile is like 1360ish rapid, I am 1400ish rapid and hardly studies with no extraordinary talent, I just grind played (have like near 1500 rapid games or something) and learned tricks like how not to get legal mated, and now just played standard e4 e5 stuff. I gave up the london (d4 bishop out etc) and bird (f4), people are'nt even good at this rating but My advice is 

- GRIND & Play a lot of games

- Learn noobish tactics like forks, setups etc

- Play faster time controls for quicker reactions (in rapid I am sometimes MINUTES AHEAD cuz lots of people quite slow)

- Maybe stick to a opening/openings, and get familiar with it so your opening is quickie, learn some gambit/tricks (like Black Shilling, the FLAWED Eungland gambit etc)

I have little opening theory knowledge, I played around with some openings like London and bird, I have not needed theory to get to 1400+ rapid. I have learned some fried liver theory, eungland gambit, black shilling etc. You just try to develope pieces quickly in the opening, learn setups as you go along and your fine. 

Thanks for the advice. It's refreshing to hear from someone that answers the question but knows what is needed and spends the effort to help.  I'll do that ........ all that.  I need to research some of the titles you mentioned but I've watch enough video's to understand what to look for.  How you described it and what you were telling me sounds correct, solid and attractive to dive into.

Thanks again, sincerely ..............................

Steph

Some people just wants to have a little fun with chess and just play speed chess because it is easy to do so.

If you wish to improve your game, you shouldn't play bullet. Shortest time format for improvement for majority of people is 15|10, but playing even longer games is great for sure.  You just need time to think about your move carefully, speed chess is not great for this.

bullet games are good to learn how to see what opponent is gonna do faster. however, bullet is for stupid and ballsy plays so wont learn much. i suggest finding a person to practice with in like 10 min chess and playing like you are playing bullet

Bullet is just moving pieces as fast as possible up to a certain rating without blundering. You have no time to think, just move the piece on autopilot. If you want to improve your chess overall, you play longer time controls.

Your bullet will improve indirectly when you're blitz/rapid improves but bullet won't improve your chess in general especially when beginners are still learning how to move the pieces.

He means @GothamChess xD... he accidentally put "on" at the end

You are 880, which means you are very new to the game, so don’t play anything faster than 15+10 and 30 min. Keep learning from your mistakes. 

Not necessarily wrong advice, but a bit harsh. Playing bullet and playing blitz can be useful. The danger is taking them too seriously as a learning tool or getting too accustomed to fast paced attempts at playing chess. But that can of danger can be managed.

Nice wording there. Shared by many. I even say bullet is not really chess. But... poison? Come on!

For beginners, longer games are absolutely better to play.

Bullet chess is more for advanced players, who already have a fairly strong grasp of the game.

It all depends on what you would like to get from chess at any specific moment. If you really like playing superfast for fun, then bullet is exactly the right thing for you. But if you want to improve, playing bullet is not the right way. By playing bullet you could even pick something up in your bullet experience that might make it harder for you to improve later on. For example you might find that attacking has great value in bullet, while in longer time controls the attack would be repelled.

The question of how to improve is difficult. Some people say that playing longer time controls and analyzing your own games is the best way to learn. That is certainly true from a certain level onwards, but I find it to be problematic at beginner level. As a beginner your knowledge is maybe not yet such that you can clearly spot all the mistakes that you make. That's why it might happen that a beginner becomes too reliant on a computer. And that's a problem. Where humans think in concepts, a computer just looks at one specific position and finds the best move there. So you might think you've learned something, but it might be the wrong idea in a (slightly) different position. Also, it's harder for a beginner to ignore certain computer lines. There are lines that are just not feasible for any human to see. So playing longer time controls and analysing your own games, when you might not find your own mistakes or put too much reliance into what a computer suggests, might be a difficult way to improve in chess. 

As a trainer, I always tried to focus heavily on middlegame strategy and a few basic endgames at the beginner level. If you learn how to use knights and bishops effectively, that will also improve your skill at the game. And it might become easier to spot 'natural' moves. If you would do this with analyzing your own games without a computer where you're focusing on the moves where either side lost a piece or more, you'd have quite a nice training schedule. 

If I tie this back to the original question of whether playing 30 min games is hurtful or not, I'd say that it could be a possibility. You'd have to look at the whole picture. If you study chess and only play games with 30 mins then that's absolutely great. Having more time means you'll think more about a move and probably play a little better. If you'd only play 30 mins games and then not study, because playing the game is already a big drain on the time that you want to spend on chess, then it could very well be impeding your improvement. In that last situation it could very well be more valuable to study a little bit more and play games with 10 mins only.

Edit: last point: you could also make a point about how playing more games would get you more experience faster. But watching some youtube videos where a stronger player plays 5 min chess could also be useful in that regard. If a strong player quickly plays a move, it's probably because it's a good move in general (like a rook to an open file).

Witam