15-Minute vs. Blitz

I brought this up in a couple of other threads because it was in line with the topic but there wasn't really much resolution on the discussion and there never seems to be when I talk about it.

Some players advocate playing blitz (once you get to a certain proficiency tactically) as a means of pattern recognition, game volume, opening preparation and practice, clock  management, etc. I agree with these things. However, why would a game like a 3/2 or a 5/0 be MORE effective for all of these things while training than playing repeated 15-minute or 15/10 games instead?

Open to all comments, ideas, suggestions anything. It's just a question I've had for a while and I'm interested in what people have to say.

Of course they wouldn't be more effective. Short games are just "more fun" for many people.

And the 15 minute games attract many of the people with bad connections. Most people just don't have the patience to sit quietly and wait while their opponent disconnects and reconnects 100 times.

Once again, this is why I prefer the pay only servers for live chess. You don't go through that. I mean, hardly ever and if someone's connection IS that bad, it's handled efficiently with timestamping and other features.

At least we have our answer: People play blitz because it's fun - not because it has any training value over a rapid or classical game whatsoever.

That's a Coach Heisman prejudice.  He has a whole column dedicated to the evils of 15 minute games.  I didn't agree as I was reading it, and that was several years ago, but I'll try to remember.  His two points were that you will lull yourself into thinking that you are calculating deeply when in fact you simply don't have enough time to.  The second point was that since the only valid reason for playing blitz is to learn new openings you're wasting time as you could play 3 blitz games for every one 15 minute game.  Hey, I'm just the messenger.  I get Coach's points but I don't think we all learn in the same way and that he's being a touch dogmatic.  No disrespect meant to Coach Heisman though; he's a wonderful teacher.  Oh, Coach thinks 10 minute games are subject to the same criticism: too short to think deeply and too long for pattern recognition and testing.

I'm working on attacking chess so I can take the initiative and working on time so I'm not ...in time trouble. In these USCF swiss and quad tournaments I need to move faster than my opponents. Plain and simple. If this was a 5/0 or 3/2 game I probably never would have had this materialize.

The other thing is that you can shrug off a blitz game easier than a 15/0, 15/10, 20/5, etc. It's just more light and superficial.

Anyway, we could say a lot on the subject but I'm running these over and over mixed in the with the occasional 30+30 or 45+45 to get as ready as I can for OTB tournament play. The thing that I like about the pools on ICC is that there's always a game, they're really competitive, and I'll play someone 100 points below me one game and then 300 points above me every now and then. It's nice to have a spread that I have no control over (nor my opponents).

I don't really know how Dan could say that I'd be better off running 5/0 blitz which, as he should know, at my level is a total blunderfest half of the time. 15/0 is a little better. I prefer 15/10 but there's no increment in most USCF events...just a 5 or 10 d, so I find no increment online to be a good training tool. I get WORKED in 15-20 moves by 1500-1700 now and then but I go over the game extensively, with and without an engine, and learn as much as I can from it.

I did almost forget: I find rapid games like this to be far, far more enjoyable than blitz.

This one makes me cringe. Then again it did go 30+ moves but I could obviously have resigned this early. The problem wasn't that I couldn't calculate - the problem was that I didn't. If I took a few extra seconds or minutes, whatever, it would have worked out better than it did. Of course then I look @ the guy's profile and he's a member of T4545League, STTourney, STC, USCF, FIDE, with like 98,767 15 minute games played. So I know I'm improving, my long chess ratings keep improving, and I'm having fun. Maybe I'll write into Dan's column about it.

Look at the clocks. Some of these games turn out to be the same length as a 5/0 or 5/2. Close enough, at least.

I don't know what heisman thinks but i don't think blitz suitable to that level, You should have time enough to play the game seriously, more time is waste (for seeing more positions, working on calculation etc.) For me its, 3 minutes if i have mouse, if i am with touchpad 3 minutes oftwen wont be enough for playing every move with considering possibilities. So i prefer 3+2 or 5 0. Otherwise i play last moves just as what i think first, (oh he attacks my queen escape it is most i can consider with 10 seconds left on clock with 10-20 moves left in game) (While i can play most endgame positions pawns+pieces accurately till mate if i got around 30 seconds) While this is true for me, i watch some of my students (1200-1300 range) playing 5 0 games as pushing pieces around, checking when possible, threating pieces with hope their opponent wont see it, which is way different than their slow game. Which tells me they shouldnt play 5 0 at all because they get bad habits, while one of my low rated students play 3 minute game with reasonable play strength. I advice him play blitz because he still can get most out of the game and if he plays faster he can play more games. The problem he has is he dont use his time when he plays slow games as well (still plays with his strength %90 of moves but misses easy good moves %10 time which i dont like) but playing 15 0 game won't help him with this as well, he needs to play 60 30, 90 30 games with using all his time. For different reasons different time controls needed. From what i saw in your games you shouldnt play 15 0 as well because it simply doesnt enough for you. You say tournaments require 3 0, 5 0 time control, i say you can choose not to play them you dont have to adapt them, choose what you can play.

Playing faster comes automatically by playing more and studying more (in time) but using your time efficiently (and using more time) is harder. It simply needs more things to consider, approach deeper to position, which pawn structure you are heading to, which pieces to keep which one to trade, what you know about your opponent, what is his style, what kind of positions he can (or you can) play. Should you enter into complications or keeping it simple is better for you (this is nothing personal, if your opponent has better prospects you may want to complicate it so both of you can't play perfect game and chances would be equal, but if you have advantage you may want to keep it simple and try to find best moves etc.) Evaluating positional elements, recalling similar games, calculating complications, thinking about transposition, planning etc. There is infinite number of things you can consider in nearly every position. But which ones you aware of and which ones you consider most important to do depending on you (which determines your strength)

It's not really a matter of my personal choice: It's what's available. Since we play multiple rounds a day here and sometimes that's the only tournament available in a wide area, we're forced to play time controls like 25/5, 45/5, G60, etc. The simple fact is that I guess you didn't look at my play history: I play a lot of 45+45 games, 45+10, etc. 15/0 is a supplement. I mean I guess this thread is like a lot of other things in life: Ask one expert get one answer, ask another and...you get the idea.

Still, I know what you're saying and if you read my previous posts on this site I obviously see the value in slow games. That's mostly what I play. But getting ready for serious tournament play where it's G35/5d and I need to be moving a bit faster to not fall way behind in time trouble and have to launch some ill fated attack. I understand (and have personally seen so far) that long games and grilling positions deeply is what breeds speed but again, I have to get used to playing in time trouble or ...it's just not going to work out well.

Interesting discussion. I always thought the matter of time controls was an interesting discussion and perhaps a crucial one.

 It's a bug I sure, becuse it is not foriet on time he has 2 sec. Sometiemes I do'nt get it.

Chess.com need to pay instantchess.com for their live chess interface.  It's the best, functionally and aesthetically, and I've absolutely never had a problem with it.  It is sad that such a good interface is wasted on such a garbage website as instantchess.com.  I used to play there, but the website has absolutely no features at all, aside from the fact that it is "cup of coffee compatible," whatever the hell that is supposed to mean --aren't they all!?

This game is about the same quality as a 3-minute game played by 1250s on chess.com.

There's a pretty quick answer to this.  Application of knowledge.  In a 5 minute blitz game, there is enough time for one or two serious thinks, or a bunch of quick calculations.  It is not entirely pattern recognition, but much of it is.  The faster blitz controls are more indicative of pattern recognition.  I don't even mess with bullet, except OTB, since a 5 minute OTB seems to be more comparable to an online G/3.5 or so.  What is online bullet in OTB terms, G/.5?  HA! --not that it can't be still helpful in pattern recognition, but I'd rather do instant tactics on chess.emrald.net. By "application of knowledge," I mean that G/15 permits much more consideration of strategic alternatives.  I think that this control gives a player the ability to examine more of his or her own passive knowledge, improving one's active knowledge content.  If you've read Soltis' What It Takes to Become a Master, you might see what I'm saying, because G/15 allows one to rotate through consciousness all or most of the passive pieces of knowledge to find "what matters most," as Soltis says.  I don't see that this ever happens in my G/5 games.  I do see that secondary ideas do avail themselves of consideration in longer games, and then I am quicker to choose those ideas in similar contexts when I am playing G/5 later on.  Additionally, my endgame technique is better practiced in G/15 than G/5, which immediately shows in my long games.

I think there are practical benefits in these time controls, in particular: G3 +i (whatever i,  <5 or =5), G/5, G/15, and G/30, as well as really long practice games (i.e., G/45 +45i and longer).  As always, probably the most important component of all of these is analysis of the game with comensurate quality to the quantity of time devoted, for the sake of improving.  (For example, titled players notwithstanding, who ever analyzes bullet games? ) 

I'm not really sure what your point is but ...you're really not rated much higher than me. ICC is a more competitive player pool. That's well established. I obviously play at a much higher level than 1250 when we start moving to longer time controls like 30+30, 45+45, or 90+30.

Interesting post. Thanks for chiming in.

Some have advocated a spread of all time controls. I had posted this in another thread last week. It pertains to taking a player from basically expert to master class but still, it highlights specifically a path for adult improvement fueled by using the different tools the modern computer and internet afford us.

http://www.convekta.com/softscho/l1/lesson_3.html

Rough estimate: It seems like they're suggesting about 70% 90+30 and longer games (I guess we would include 45+45 into this) 20% 15 minute games, and 10% blitz games. It does revolve around a high volume of play and tactical training though.

You are very welcome.

Again, I think the spread really depends upon a number of considerations, such as age, how much analysis you are willing to put in, the particular player's weaknesses, and others.  For example, many adult players don't analyze blitz at all.  Therefore, the 10% proposal is probably good.  However, between the consideration that blitz allows a player to see many, many more unique positions than spending the same allotment on longer games, and if the analysis performed finds the primary reasons for loss, etc., then the blitz could immediately become more valuable.  A player with strong intuition for choosing candidate moves, but poor visualization and calculation, could find more value in longer games.  While there certainly are universal rules that a re helpful in guiding players on which time controls to work on, none of these rules apply universally, because we are all unique in our needs.  I have completely halted blitz, for example, because I am playing very creatively and intuitively, but not calculating well enough to confirm my intuition in long games; and so I often make erroneous moves in longer games, because I calculate my intuition's chosen candidate moves as fallacious and losing, though they are winning!  What does it matter if I can pick the best moves in a blitz game, but cannot calculate and visualize well enough to verify these moves in a long USCF game?

On the age point, my coach and other players I speak to say that their youths play absoltely positively no long games except for USCF tournament games.  They suck up patterns, ideas, and technique like it is nobody's business, and they get bored playin G/10 and longer.  I see this in the long USCF games: I played a slow positional game against a kid rated around 1793, and he was bored to death.  He played poor moves because of it.  In such cases, something drastic, like close to 100% blitz, is the only kind of control that can be effective for learning, since they can't pay attention at longer controls, even if USCF classic points are on the line.

Here the updated version http://chessok.com/?p=21207 

It claims they were studying chess with houdini3 aquarium at year 1998, also in the list of chess programs 1997-2004 ; Chess Openings Encyclopeida 2012 !?!

They i have seen it 5-6 years ago first, every year they change programs there everything else is same. If that programs helped him become IM why change name of them. Actually i like convekta programs but programs %20 of what they say, i usually work with 2100-2400 or higher programs with no difficulty (i am rated 1700) One of my 2100 friend solved a few 2800+ problems in seconds all perfect, even the variations they didnt mention. Again i say they make quality software but more ads then it. I bought their smartphone app as well with no regret same price with a chess book, same amount of exercises, in addition to that theory part (some games), easier to carry then a book, always with me, interactive etc. Downside is looking phones screen is not good as looking at book.

I'm not highly rated but since you say you are equivalent strength to me,compare:

Your blitz rating after 200 games: <950ish

Mine after like many thosands of games (!): 1350-1450ish

You're deluding yourself if you want to keep telling yourself you're as strong as a 1400 blitz player here on chess.com. 

So contrary to your post, I actually am rating significantly higher than you. If you're comparing my standard rating, you're using a flawed measure - I've played less than 6 standard games here.

I've never once said anywhere that I was playing 1400 blitz chess. I said standard chess. Which I am playing at a 1400+ level.

Nobody cares about your blitz rating, man. Your classical is all that matters and I'm a guy who's been around the game a year and is almost as highly rated as you (on this site). I'm rated almost 1500 in the 25+10 pool on ICC and I doubt you would be yourself. It's much more competitive on that server.

The point was that you shouldn't act all high and mighty when you're talking to a beginner who's almost at your level in a year. Obviously, I have more innate talent than you do.