I am decent at classical, and ok at rapid, but I cannot play bullet or blitz well at all. Never could. I was curious to look at the profiles of others who are in the same boat. Any one else struggle with short term games?
Thanks,
Thanks,
@RickOShay said in #1:
> I am decent at classical, and ok at rapid, but I cannot play bullet or blitz well at all. Never could. I was curious to look at the profiles of others who are in the same boat. Any one else struggle with short term games?
>
> Thanks,
Blitz and bullet need bold predictions and demand quick and accurate moves without calculating them fully.
These traits grow with experience, while calculation grows with memory training and pattern visualisation.
I was always terrible with 'short' time controls (< 10 + 5 Minutes), but maybe relaxing and allowing mistakes to be made helps?
Aa of now, "Fortune favors the bold" never worked for me. Unless you have particular care in your rating for publicity reasons, I suppose playing at first instict may help?
> I am decent at classical, and ok at rapid, but I cannot play bullet or blitz well at all. Never could. I was curious to look at the profiles of others who are in the same boat. Any one else struggle with short term games?
>
> Thanks,
Blitz and bullet need bold predictions and demand quick and accurate moves without calculating them fully.
These traits grow with experience, while calculation grows with memory training and pattern visualisation.
I was always terrible with 'short' time controls (< 10 + 5 Minutes), but maybe relaxing and allowing mistakes to be made helps?
Aa of now, "Fortune favors the bold" never worked for me. Unless you have particular care in your rating for publicity reasons, I suppose playing at first instict may help?
<Comment deleted by user>
how do you know if your are better at classical than in Blitz? Ratings do not tell it. Typically rapid rating is about blitz+200 classical still about 100 more. Rating are relative. stronger the pool then getting closer to top gets harder. And most strong player do not play rapid and even more so classical hence the blitz pool is clearly the strongest. and thats why blitz rating are typically lower.
Only if you rapid would be like 400 points stronger then there would be reason to assume that you are indeed stronger in rapid. Most common reason for that could starting chess at late age.
Only if you rapid would be like 400 points stronger then there would be reason to assume that you are indeed stronger in rapid. Most common reason for that could starting chess at late age.
I'm good at rapid only
Bullet and blitz is super aggressive unlike classical which is more controlled and strategical.
If you are not a mentally aggressive person maybe you will not be so good at these aggressive formats.
If you are not a mentally aggressive person maybe you will not be so good at these aggressive formats.
Here I am. I am a member of the club.
Lately I've been doing a lot of blitz games, for two reasons: 1) it's a period when I'm very busy, and I only play in my spare time (a rapid game can last up to 45 minutes, and I can rarely find the time); 2) as an exercise, and in order to speed myself up a bit.
The results are very bad: there's no way, it's not for me.
However, I have to be honest: there was never a feeling with the fast game. For me, the pleasure of playing chess is all about thinking, thinking, thinking, thinking, and thinking again, before making every move. So I confess that when I play blitz I don't have much fun; As soon as I lose a bishop my commitment drops sharply, and I continue to play so as not to seem rude to the opponent by immediately resigning.
However, even when I put in the effort, my blitz games are generally filled with an incredible amount of indecent stuff, both from me and from the opponents. I once collected in a game something like 8 blunders and I don't know how many mistakes. Maybe things change at higher levels, but in my games there is really very little quality.
So, as I said, it's not for me.
Lately I've been doing a lot of blitz games, for two reasons: 1) it's a period when I'm very busy, and I only play in my spare time (a rapid game can last up to 45 minutes, and I can rarely find the time); 2) as an exercise, and in order to speed myself up a bit.
The results are very bad: there's no way, it's not for me.
However, I have to be honest: there was never a feeling with the fast game. For me, the pleasure of playing chess is all about thinking, thinking, thinking, thinking, and thinking again, before making every move. So I confess that when I play blitz I don't have much fun; As soon as I lose a bishop my commitment drops sharply, and I continue to play so as not to seem rude to the opponent by immediately resigning.
However, even when I put in the effort, my blitz games are generally filled with an incredible amount of indecent stuff, both from me and from the opponents. I once collected in a game something like 8 blunders and I don't know how many mistakes. Maybe things change at higher levels, but in my games there is really very little quality.
So, as I said, it's not for me.
I'm so bad at blitz that I don't even dare to try it. :-)
I wouldn't even say I'm 'bad' at blitz, I'd say I can't even play it. The way I use tactics is to support whatever strategy I have in mind and trying to do that in a 5 minute game just isn't possible for me. The only way I could play it would be to develop a different playing style for short time controls and I think doing right now might stunt my development in classical so I haven't bothered.
I used to be a bit embarrassed by it because I got flagged so much, but I only play classical time control OTB so it really doesn't matter.
I used to be a bit embarrassed by it because I got flagged so much, but I only play classical time control OTB so it really doesn't matter.
If you downgrade both performances (like "very bad at Blitz but mediocre at Classical"), I'll join the club.