I think short games. Why? Because you have to put all your calculations into a 1-second move. You don't have time to think. When you play really high-level speed games, you can't rely on your opponent just messing up. You need to use the same knowledge in a shorter time span.
what do you think requires more skills?
Sort:
I would say that the best Fast players are also the best slow players because its still chess. The more long games a person plays the quicker they become at recognizing tactics and picking good moves. Therefore a lot of the pattern recognition and quick planning that is needed to be a good fast player is developed by playing many long games.
Chessroshi wrote:
What I was saying was that there are fields that have different styles within a discipline. Is chess the same as running.... of course not. Chess is like chess, running is like running. The point to my idea is that there are different ways to play chess, just as there are different ways to run, that both use different skill sets. You cannot say that a Blitz player is any less skillful than a Slow player because they are different disciplines within chess!
That's just plain false. Slow chess requires tactical skills, positional understanding, concentration and focus, deep analysis abilities, stamina, etc etc. 1 minute games on the other hand may require some of the above, but to a much lesser extent than slow games do. Bullet chess is more focused on moving your pieces quickly than finding the best move. The obvious conclusion is that slow chess requires more chess-specific skills on a wider scale than bullet chess does.
Why're you guys giving Chessroshi such a hard time for an elementary metaphor?
Blitz is like sprinting in that it's all about the ability to make those bursts of quick movement, while long chess is more of an endurance test.
Sheesh. It's called a metaphor. A comparison that uses "like" rather than "is".
Some of you guys are extreme dorks, it's painful.
And if you're going to get all consternated and want to argue this further, typing away furiously because you don't think that blitz is equivocal to sprinting and long games are in some oblique way comparative to marathons, well,
back away from the keyboard and re-evaluate your priorities.
And NOW for the CORRECT answer.
Long chess definately requires more overall ability once you put it all together: positional understanding, tactical ability, memory, openings knowledge, strategic planning, endgames knowledge.
Quick chess requires even more memory and pattern recognition than long, whether it be openings or tactical or whatever, BUT, that is pretty much the only thing it does require.
So, in other words, there is no answer to the question, as the two require different skill sets, which several people did point out.
Running, while unlike chess in every way, also requires different skill sets depending on sprint or marathon.
Hey Benjamin, if you want your argument to hold water, try defining skill. This is exactly why I try to avoid posting in forums with these vague unanswerable questions. People like to make these battle posts where everyone is supposed to vote on stuff, like what tastes better, a burrito or a chimichanga. If everyone is going to argue when someone like me tries to point out this type of thing, then how about posting a measurable quality of something when comparing stuff. A question like 'What has more beans in it?' would be something you could verify and actually be worth ranting on a little monkeys head about. So until you guys learn to ask actual questions instead of tossing up subjective popularity contests, get off my back.
long games
I don't find the chess/running analogy very persuasive, and we don't need analogies to understand what long chess is and what bullet is. Chess is very well described and we as chess hobbyists ought to know enough about the game to just be specific when we talk about chess. Do runners find the need to include other sport/game analogies when they discuss the nature of running?
Apart from that, it has always been my impression that the 100 m sprint is a full
and complete running challenge in itself, even if longer races have the strategy
(like pack tactics and where to place yourself and when to make your move)
that the sprints don't have.
Still, long games require more chess skill, the good quality of moves being most important. Bullet is practically consumed with the need for time-management and pressuring the opponent on the clock; not what I consider refined chess skills. For that matter bullet requires as a primary skill the ability of being very quick on piece pickup and placement or quick with the mouse. That has almost
nothing to do with what I consider to be "chess skills."
Long games for sure.Blitz games is more on memory and reflex,but in long games you see who is better chees player.
well, then ask a "sprinter" what he/she thinks
ask a "marathon runner" what he/she thinks
as a beginner i believe that longer games are more difficult because my brain works harder for longer period of time......but both require skill.
in quick games everything happens so fast that by the time i realize ive lost.....
im already losing in the next quick game
It feels better to win in a longer type game, you get to test your calculational depth strength.
Chessroshi wrote:
What I was saying was that there are fields that have different styles within a discipline. Is chess the same as running.... of course not. Chess is like chess, running is like running. The point to my idea is that there are different ways to play chess, just as there are different ways to run, that both use different skill sets. You cannot say that a Blitz player is any less skillful than a Slow player because they are different disciplines within chess! You're not going to understand this, but I'm going to say it anyway.... Blitz is Blitz, Slow play is Slow play. A marathon runner may make a terrible sprinter, and a sprinter may be the worst marathoner in the world, but that does not take away from their skill. They are skillful in their specific discipline within a certain field. There is not really an answer to the question posed on this forum. Skill is a supremely vague term. Perhaps a question like "Who plays more accurate moves, Blitz or Slow players?" would get an answer. The 'skill', whatever that may pertain to, is going to be different in two different types of chess because they are two different types of chess!
im not sure your getting my question though. which one requires more skills than the other. and if you say you cant say then fine so be it its just a comment, dont need to start anything up in here.
Dec 8, 2008
0
#34
Rael wrote:
Why're you guys giving Chessroshi such a hard time for an elementary metaphor?
Blitz is like sprinting in that it's all about the ability to make those bursts of quick movement, while long chess is more of an endurance test.
Sheesh. It's called a metaphor. A comparison that uses "like" rather than "is".
Some of you guys are extreme dorks, it's painful.
And if you're going to get all consternated and want to argue this further, typing away furiously because you don't think that blitz is equivocal to sprinting and long games are in some oblique way comparative to marathons, well,
back away from the keyboard and re-evaluate your priorities.
I really hate to be a pedant, but for the sake of the irony, a metaphor is a direct comparison, it's a simile that uses "like", sorry
Personally, the comparison makes perfect sense, although I think it's a little flawed. A sprinter could be a marathon runner, and vice versa, it's literally just a case of different distances. If you've got an athlete's body you can put it through the required paces for a number of different disciplines. With blitz and long chess I think the skillset differences are vaster. Blitz requires more recognition of patterns and positions, and substitutes this and tactical novelties for the deep strategy in long chess. I'm not knocking it, I just think the differences are greater is all. I think it's more like a pentathalon - some professional people are better at different parts of it, they're all reasonable at every part, and all parts require different skills.
depends on your definition of skill. Blitz is reflexes, and long is just deep thinking. Both take skill, just different types.
The chessroshi argument without all the monkeying around :-)