Blitz Chess-- Winning on time

I am just starting to learn to play chess on here. I have been playing alot of 10 and 5 minute blitz games lately and I have been getting alot of my wins off of winning on time. What I am trying to figure out is this-- is the purpose of Blitz chess to make your opponent run out of time trying to win or just to survive longer than your opponent. I know this is probley a really stupid question but for someone who is just getting into playing Blitz -- but if I am able to make my opponents think longer than I am and run out of time trying to beat me is that making me a better player instead of being really aggressive in this type of game? If this is the wrong forum to post this in I apoligize in advance.

Thanks,

txjerbear

Thanks for clarifying. Does that mean that if I am just playing very defensively it is a bad stratagy then? I try putting the king in check a few times each match but mostly I am very defensive and seem to play more reactive then proactive in this type of game. If that makes any since at all. I know I am not using the right termonology. I am just getting into this as a hobby because I work at a competitive games (mostly video games) but were expanding into having chess tournaments and a club. Thanks for the advice.

By solid setup, are you refering to using openings like Roy Lopez, Queens Gambit Decline,  or something like that? What do you mean by hung pieces? Also, I have been learning about some of these openings but when my opponent doesnt go by a stardard response-- do I still want to try to develop that opening or then play defensive/offensive based on the opponent? Thanks for responding to my posts. I know talking to noobs in the game can be kinda boring but I appriciate it.

A win is a win, I say.  If you're playing blitz, then making a "strange" move, (they call it "confusionary rift") to make you're opponent waste time (esp. when time is REALLY tight) is ok... But it's not really going to help you get better at chess... if you REALLY want to get good, you'll play as slowly and deliberatly as possible, and you'll analyze the game afterward.  Forget those 5-10 min. games... Each player should have AT LEAST 30min. (more! more!) and USE that time to THINK about the game at hand. 

Also you ask -

"Does that mean that if I am just playing very defensively it is a bad stratagy then?"

indeed.  Try to make your opponent react to you.  That is called having the inititive... the more he has to deal with your threats, the less of his plan he can execute. He looses a tempo which might be put to better use elsewhere (i.e. development, creating a threat of his own)

Hope this helps...

A solid setup it one that is free of structural weaknesses, not a memorized opening.  Besides, openings are DEEP.  The two players BUILD the opening together, it's not JUST a series of moves that you make to get your army out and into formation (although it is a little), the game is more beautiful and harmonious than that.  What you need are TACTICS.  study tactics and a little positional stuff... honestly I think the best thing for you would be to just collect the definitions of chess related words that you don't understand, and to think a bit about what these terms MEAN.  There's a awful lot, but just picking a few a day (I see you know the word checkmate, but do you know what "removal of the defender" is?  look it up!  Zugzwang?  Look it up!! The more chess terms you know, the better you'll begin to understand chess.... good luck!

The purpose of a chess game is to mate the enemy King. - and not run out of time while doing so.

the thing is internet blitz chess is essentially a video game (a fun and addictive video game) for everyone who isn't a strong professional. just think about it logically. who else can possibly play actual real chess in such short time controls? without it just devolving into chaos and nonsense decided by who makes the first mistake that actually gets noticed or sheer luck. in real chess, one tiny pawn move even can be enough to win or lose an entire game, in blitz unless the players are really strong, each side is making false moves, mistakes, blunders on every other move or more. what blitz is good for is practicing tactics really and general exercise for real chess. and it's fun and addictive, really it's a drug. I think rapid time controls, 25-30 minutes, are worth playing more, but it can be difficult to find willing opponents online most of the time, so you should go to the local chess club for some really real chess.

also it is my opinion that people always have the option to play really annoyingly in blitz, they specialize in flagging basically, this isn't chess anymore. almost like the opponent always has the option to negate from the game any kind of actual chess and turn it into annoying bs. this probably doesn't stop happening entirely until you are playing people rated 2000 or higher, most of those people will probably be playing with checkmate as their main goal for the whole game, or at least the majority of it. some people start the game with their only goal being to win on time, not even trying to give mate. what a lot of these people will do is try as hard as possible to completely close off the position, close it up just enough and then just run around aimlessly, hoping you get really confused, hypnotized by all the variations and/or so annoyed and frustrated that you start kamikazing your pieces. meanwhile they are just hoping pieces around randomly (usually behind a wall of pawns) and if someone is really good at this, really fast with the mouse without slipping, this can actually work against everyone who isn't very strong or a professional. you'll know if you just played a game like this afterwards by the feeling you get, it feels differently when you played a blitz game and both people were actually going for mate. after you play an annoying bs flagging specialist, you generally get this unsatisfied/disgusted feeling, especially if they acheive their goal of flagging you (you are about to mate them in 5 moves or less and then you glimpse the clock and it says 3.5 seconds, whilst they have a full minute or two on their clock, tell me it's not true that these people exist).

my remedy for this is to not allow this type of person to close off the position, do everything possible to get it really open, sometimes even if it means sacing a pawn or something, just so they can't move their pieces around randomly behind a wall of pawns and have to play actual moves.

Thanks for all the responses-- This has really helped me.

 There's a name for that?

I agree with what you said.  To add my further two cents....

In my opinion, Blitz Chess is not just Chess with a very short time control.  I think of it as a Chess variant in which time is, and is meant to be, a significant element.   There is absolutely no shame in winning on time in Blitz, and it is not less of a win.

I frequently find myself in a clearly lost game if judged by "real" Chess standards.  I might be  down two pawns when we each have a rook and a king.  I'm sunk if it's real Chess.  At that point, I look at the clock.  Am I ahead on time?  Does he have less than one minute?  At that point I start pulling out any trick I can to force him to make more moves than he wants to make.  I'll sacrifice material if I can force him to make two extra moves in extreme time pressure.  I'll throw in "confusionary rift" moves.  I'll do "nuissance checks", i.e. moves that serve no purpose other than to put him in check, forcing him to react, and take up a few precious seconds.

I even play differently in the middle game.  In Blitz Chess, I often trade my knight for his bishop even in a game that looks like it will be closed.  In such circumstances, knights are better in Chess, but they usually require more thinking time to utilize well, especially in the end game.  In Blitz Chess, it might make more sense to give up the knight in favor of a bishop, figuring that the choice will gain some seconds.

Also, if I have a clearly won game, but I lose on time, I don't begrudge my opponents the win.  I gained the advantage by carefully evaluating my position, but I used extra seconds to gain it.  I have no right to complain when the flag falls.

In regular Chess, many of those tactics would be annoying, and in some cases I would even consider them unsportsmanlike, but in Blitz Chess, a nuissance check is no more illegal than a football team falling on the ball with 27 seconds left in the game.

 I never noticed the issue with the interface. I would agree that taking advantage of an error in the timing system isn't very sporting.

I agree with a lot of what's been said here.  I think to get better, you should play 30 minute games at least.  But time is part of it. That's why there's a clock!

Blitz is a form of chess and winning on time in a ten minute game is perfectly legit. It's also a lot of fun when you somehow score a checkmate with a few seconds left.

BUT I think when there's say 2 minutes on one clock and a minute on the other clock and the game is even, the more honorable thing, even in blitz, is to offer a draw.  Because otherwise, one is just trying to point and click faster. 

yeah, but no one does this. it becomes who can click and point their mouse the fastest without slipping! yay! I love that video game!

the other thing, if someone willingly plays a ten minute game and time decides it, I don't think anyone would argue about this in of itself, it was a ten minute game after all. what get's annoying (and absurd) are people who think these games have grand significance and gives them the right to walk around like they are just so so so brilliant and so so so good at chess and have legitimate basis to harshly insult other people and look down upon them. please. it's not the same thing as real chess played in real life in real tournaments, not even close.

 I disagree with the general tone of this. seemingly implying that internet blitz chess between chess enthusiasts has as much significance as real chess played in real life in real tournaments. it doesn't and people shouldn't be going around pretending it does, acting as if it does, talking as if it does. for 99% of the population it's a fun addictive entertaining video game, nothing more, nothing less. 

I don't think Chess and Chess Blitz are made to be the same game.  It has a Z at the end of its name so it can't just be fast chess.  Use any adv. you have to win.

 For my part, I'm one of those people who don't think that any board game has much significance, whether it's Chess, Blitz Chess, Shogi, or "Hey That's My Fish" .  I like all of those games. 

In terms of Chess quality, I would agree that there is no substitute for over the board play with reasonably lengthy time controls.  As I said earlier, I think of Blitz as a separate game from Chess.  Obviously, there is overlap in the skill sets, but anyone who says they are a great Chess player because they are a great Blitz player is probably wrong.

My major point, directed at the OP, was that if you are playing Blitz Chess, play it.  Make no apologies for playing, or winning, based on the rules of that game.  The whole point of Blitz Chess is to play rapidly, under extreme time pressure right from the start.  If the other guy is a great Chess player, but needs more time than you do to come up with the right move, then he isn't as good as you at Blitz Chess.  Celebrate your "W", without feeling a need to put an asterisk next to it.

 Surely this cant be right, 1.e4 black lets his clock run down and gets a draw, no way can white be deemed to be winning?

yeah I completely disagree. the "skills", if you want to call it that, for blitz and bullet between chess enthusiasts are not the same at all as the skills real chess players exhibit in real tournaments in real life. in less words what you wrote probably/maybe applies to professional players, strong tournament players, but not chess enthusiasts, completely different story. for 99% of the population blitz and bullet are video games, not real chess where real skill is used. 

Yesterday I played a game that really exposes a difference between Chess and Blitz Chess. I always play 5/0 online.  As the game wound down, I had a clear advantage.  I was slightly ahead on material.  We each had two rooks. I had about 30 seconds on my clock.  He had about 15.  My king was in the center of the board.  Seeking to preserve my lead in time, I made a hasty move that allowed him to skewer my rook.  Suddenly, I'm in trouble.  I have one rook.  He has two.  My king is exposed.  I'm in trouble.  If this were "real" Chess, I resign.  Instead, I quickly saw a plan.  I moved my king toward the a file.  I could see where it would go.  He would surround me with the rooks and I would lose, except...

On his back rank, his king (white) was on g1.  He had pawns on f2, h2, and g3.  No back rank checkmate possible.  However, I ducked my king behind a pawn, leaving me with one move where I wasn't in check.  With two seconds on his clock, I moved my took to his back rank.  That's check.  Easily countered, he moves to g2.  Then I move RG1+ !!

Of course, he takes the rook, which is hanging, and his clock expires.  By leaving me one free move, I caused him to make two forced moves, which was enough to run out his clock.

Good Chess?  No.  Good Blitz Chess?  Yes.

But I would also say it's not a "video game" either.  In order to get that win, I had to see a plan several moves ahead, and seize the opportunity quickly.  It wasn't a case that I won because he moved his mouse more slowly.  There was just no way to make those moves that quickly.  Had I made any other move on the board, I would have been checkmated with a second left to spare, but I made the right move and won the game. As Chess goes, it's a cheesy win, but no way would I give it back.  After all, we weren't playing Chess.

build a smart opening program so your enemy has to take time to go throgh it

Looks like a couple of answers recently to a zombie thread, but since I'm here, I'll ask a question that is somewhat related to the topic.

Do some people have a sort of "code of honor" not to win on time if they are beaten on the board?  Here's what I mean.  I have played several games recently where I have a winning position, but it will take several moves to make it happen.  Maybe I don't even have a "mate in 5" or "mate in N", but I'm up by a rook and a pawn in and engame, but I am done to 10 seconds on my clock.  There's really no way for me to win.  Other people might be able to, but for me, I have to think through the moves to make sure I don't blunder.  My clock will expire before I can checkmate.

     Suddenly, my opponent resigns.

     It has happened often enough that I wonder if some people feel duty bound to resign if there is no way they could win with those pieces.

     As I said in my post two posts and nine years ago, I don't think Blitz Chess is the same game as Chess.  I think the clock is an inherent part of the game, so winning on time is a perfectly valid way to win.  If I have a winning position, it's very possible I got it because my opponent made a move too quickly, without thinking, while I took my time and discovered the good move.  It seems only fair that she should win just because I made poor use of my clock time, while she saved enough to be sure of victory.

     It's possible these people just give up because they see defeat on the board, without looking at the clock to realize I'm about to lose, but at least some of the time that doesn't really fit what I see on the board.

     Would you ever resign a game rather than accept a win by timeout?