I think depends on the time really, alot of the GM's on playchess play 3min or 5min games with +1sec per more, Hikaru Nakamura (Star Wars) is great at quick games, you should see some of his bullet games(1min).
I think when you get to any strong level in chess time shouldn't be a massive factor in the quality of your play, yes you'll get more errors in quick games but your overall chess strength is still going to be pretty high.
I'm a blitz/bullet player I enjoy 5min and 1min games, my slow game is crap compared to my blitz. Mainly because I'm used to quick play (leads to errors) and my errors aren't always picked up on blitz games however they are in slow games.
Originally posted by AudaciousThe errors that aren't picked up in your blitz play will be rutheless punished in your correspondance play
I think depends on the time really, alot of the GM's on playchess play 3min or 5min games with +1sec per more, Hikaru Nakamura (Star Wars) is great at quick games, you should see some of his bullet games(1min).
I think when you get to any strong level in chess time shouldn't be a massive factor in the quality of your play, yes you'll get more errors i ...[text shortened]... rors) and my errors aren't always picked up on blitz games however they are in slow games.
Originally posted by AudaciousStar Wars is Nakamura? My friend beat him! :o
I think depends on the time really, alot of the GM's on playchess play 3min or 5min games with +1sec per more, Hikaru Nakamura (Star Wars) is great at quick games, you should see some of his bullet games(1min).
I think when you get to any strong level in chess time shouldn't be a massive factor in the quality of your play, yes you'll get more errors i ...[text shortened]... rors) and my errors aren't always picked up on blitz games however they are in slow games.
Anyway, I have seen a couple GMs with blitz ratings of about 2000. A lot of people that playt at my club are very strong players but they like lots of time. One guy I know is 1800 USCF, but he won't play in a tournament unless the time control is 2hours or more.
My rating at blitz is 400-500 points lower than in slower play. I just need the time to work things out and you can't do that in blitz. Therefore, my rating on RHP is a lot higher than it would normally be, because I can take a lot of time to consider a lot of alternative moves, plans, and strategies, and I can much more easily see tactical shots.
i've been up against blitz players who play their pieces back and forth just for the sake of moving. If you try to make sense out of their play, you waste time. It takes some time to figure out a way to break through if they arrange a phalanx of pawns straight across the board. I've seen lots of blitz players use blitz type openings like 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 Nc6
3. Bc4... I've seen Nakamura play it, even in normal games. He plays so much blitz, its influence is obvious. When he plays at classical time control, he will sometimes ruin positions playing "shock" moves which can easily be turned aside, but which would be effective in blitz. In general i'm of the opinion that blitz can help your game if you realize the difference. If you try to play blitz-like openings in RHP you will likely get killed.
Originally posted by synesisThe time control for that game was 5 minutes vs. 10 seconds (which would explain Black's blunder). It was played at National Chess Congress in Philly last year - unfortunately I had to leave early so I didn't see the game.
Svenderlunk vs Nakamura blitz...
http://www.youtube.com/v/fcnJ2moP-K0
And a PGN of the game:
http://hairulovchessmaniacs.blogspot.com/2007/06/svenderlunk-vs-nakamura.html
Originally posted by buddy2Well, this is decent strategy, if you're seriously ahead on time and there's a good chance your opponent will run out of time before they can checkmate you.
i've been up against blitz players who play their pieces back and forth just for the sake of moving.
However, shuffling pieces back and forth in the middle of the game like the Svenderlunk did in this video is just too passive. I guess he thought he had an impregnable defense, but Nakamura showed him just how wrong he was. Then again, an attack against Nakamura would have probably been just as futile.