why do so many people like to play rapid when (in my opinion) it’s the worst time mode?
Sort:
hudson_the_goat
Jul 6, 2023
0
#1
Idk if its just me but i feel like rapid sucks because people take 10 years to move and quitting and stalling are a big problem in rapid
Jul 6, 2023
0
#2
Ya i like 3 or 5 minute blitz cause its enough time to think but u still have to worry about time so people dont take 10 years moving
Jul 6, 2023
0
#3
skellettton wrote:
I personally am ok with rapid, i feel that it goes too slow though
If i have to play rapid it's gonna be 10 min
30 min is awful when they blunder their queen on move 3
and sit for 29 min 49 seconds
I like rapid cause it gives me a bit more thinking space and breathing room than something like blitz
And bullet is pretty much just a battle of latency
And bullet is pretty much just a battle of latency
Sometimes players need a lot of time to think, to figure out what to move. Especially at lower levels.
When I was younger and newer to the game, my favorite time control was 15+15 (15 minutes, plus 15 seconds per move).
And even then, I sometimes found it too fast ...
I don't know, I just don't like to blow 20 minutes on 1 chess game. Even gotham videos I watch at 2x the speed. People don't have a half hour to burn all the time like that.
Jul 6, 2023
0
#7
Rapid is my favorite time control, for multiple reasons.
First, I like the amount of time you have to think. I'm very slow, and it gives me more time to find good moves in the position.
Secondly, as someone who's trying to improve in over-the-board chess, I think rapid is the best time control to practice with, as it is most similar to over-the-board time controls.
My favorite online time control to play lately has been 15+10. It's a "slow" time control, but I always seem to have one second on my clock at some point in my games anyway.
Oh, absolutely! Rapid chess is just the pinnacle of boredom and pointlessness. I mean, who would want to actually think and strategize when they can just impulsively move their pieces without any consideration? It's not like chess is supposed to be a game that challenges your intellect and decision-making skills. Nope, let's just rush through it and get it over with as quickly as possible. Who needs depth and complexity when you can have a mindless race against the clock? Clearly, all those people who enjoy playing rapid are just masochists who love subjecting themselves to mediocrity.
You get time to think, and if your opponent stalls (at least in 10 min.) it’s not a long wait.
used to play 30 min but stalling just made me change to 10
Jul 6, 2023
0
#12
In my opinion 5 minutes is mote than enough time to play ur best chess
ninjahudson wrote:
In my opinion 5 minutes is mote than enough time to play ur best chess
I feel a lot of time pressure with 5 minute games. I guess I just play slowly
I personally find it ironic the slowest live time control is called rapid. I mostly play 10 minute games.
When I play over the board I like to play at least 60 min.
I prefer rapid because I already have a bad habit of moving too fast without calculating, and blitz encourages my bad habit.
ninjahudson wrote:
In my opinion 5 minutes is mote than enough time to play ur best chess
Agreed, I usually play 3 min blitz but when I really want to take my time I play 5 min.
Jul 6, 2023
0
#18
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
ninjahudson wrote:
In my opinion 5 minutes is mote than enough time to play ur best chess
Agreed, I usually play 3 min blitz but when I really want to take my time I play 5 min.
Blitz is good, bullet is better