08 May 08
Originally posted by SwissGambitSomeone who disagrees with you is a "hater?" Are we in a ghetto? :p
It shows that you can quickly recognize patterns, and keep a cool head under time pressure.
For the haters in this thread, please explain why the bullet rankings on ICC/Playchess are dominated by Grandmasters.
Anyway, GMs have more time and dedication for all chess activities so it's no surprise that they would dominate bullet too. This doesn't suddenly make it quality chess or a good representation of strength. There is an interesting and detailed discussion about this here: http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1209135905 Note that most of those discussing it are 2000+ FIDE.
08 May 08
2 edits
Originally posted by AudaciousWell, at 1 0, I don't think there's much skill involved - certainly not compared to a long time control game. However, I wouldn't say there is absolutely no skill (even tic-tac-toe requires skil!). I'm not going into your other statement because it is a red herring and relies on the "poisoning the well" fallacy.
To say you can't show your skill in a bullet game is just stupid! More often than not it's the people who are awful at speed chess who slate it. Speed chess is for fun, it's not going to massively improve your game and tbh in most cases it will harm it because you might make silly errors. But there is skill involved, watch some of the high ranking games on it's not always about how fast you move the games have a big element of skill and tactics.
To clarify, I simply don't think 1 0 is good chess or a good representation of chess strength. I'm not interested in playing it and see it as antichess. The quality I find most appealing about chess is thinking and reflection; bullet destroys this and turns chess into a kind of wild carnival ride where impulse rules. The thread I listed gives more details.
08 May 08
I tend to agree that 1 0 is basically useless in determining one's chess skill. Not that good 1 min players don't have certain skills. They do. They are quick thinkers, they have good hand-eye coordination and they have the ability to quickly read positions.
Still, that's not the same as saying they're good chess players. They may be good chess players, but they also may be lousy chess players.
Let's look at it this way, if Gary Kasparov came to RHP blitz or uchess and played 10 min games, I'm willing to bet he'd win 100% of the time or nearly 100% of the time.
If Gary Kasparov played 1 min games I'll bet any number of experienced top level 1 min players could beat him. It's a different set of skills than being a great player, which 10 min is basically that same set of skills as being a great player; it's just a slightly different dynamic.
08 May 08
2 edits
Originally posted by sh76This idea that good blitz or bullet players are quicker thinkers seems to be mostly a myth. They've simply practiced these skills intensively. (Although perhaps I'm giving it too much credit since most 1 0 games I've seen even between GMs are just time scrambles.) Someone who is just as quick naturally or even quicker but focuses on standard chess will probably lose to a 1 0 specialist. Many of them have the experience of thousands of games to reinforce what is important in their time control and they know their openings well. Similarly, GMs who can recall a great deal of chess positions with ease, do not necessarily have better memory overall. According to studies, they just have a highly developed chess memory. While still impressive, this is more a reflection of training than innate ability.
I tend to agree that 1 0 is basically useless in determining one's chess skill. Not that good 1 min players don't have certain skills. They do. They are quick thinkers, they have good hand-eye coordination and they have the ability to quickly read positions.
Still, that's not the same as saying they're good chess players. They may be good chess players, but at same set of skills as being a great player; it's just a slightly different dynamic.
Moreover, if one can play bullet without making blunders but also without many good moves, one can be extremely successful. Just having refined core chess skills will go a long way. For standard chess, one must be proficient beyond the superficial level of the core skills. One must take advantage of nuances not even visible in 1 0 and that always takes more skill to understand and use to advantage. While in 1 0 it is enough to do what we all know well, in standard, a strong standard player will play strong moves we haven't even considered. It demands much more understanding (breadth), accuracy and creativity to be at a high level. I think this is the appeal of time controls like 1 0 - 3 0, one knows what to improve and how. A 1500 level understanding applied flawlessly is enough for quite a lot. Improving at standard chess is a much more arduous process.
It may seem like I'm claiming that everything in chess (and other skills) is just training. While I'm sure that a player's skill is predominantly due to training, the capacity to be trained successfully is related to intelligence. The brain plasticity necessary to be able to build a GM-like chess memory or pattern recognition is not available to everyone even if it is something developed through training. In a game as complex as chess, it's inevitable that innate factors matter too.
09 May 08
Originally posted by exigentskyWould you say Nakamura's 1 0 playing is just... normal? Without blunders? Without good moves?
This idea that good blitz or bullet players are quicker thinkers seems to be mostly a myth. They've simply practiced these skills intensively. (Although perhaps I'm giving it too much credit since most 1 0 games I've seen even between GMs are just time scrambles.) Someone who is just as quick naturally or even quicker but focuses on standard chess will p ...[text shortened]... training. In a game as complex as chess, it's inevitable that innate factors matter too.
09 May 08
Originally posted by exigentskyNo, here's what a hater is:
Someone who disagrees with you is a "hater?" Are we in a ghetto? :p
Anyway, GMs have more time and dedication for all chess activities so it's no surprise that they would dominate bullet too. This doesn't suddenly make it quality chess or a good representation of strength. There is an interesting and detailed discussion about this here: http://www.ches ...[text shortened]... m/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1209135905 Note that most of those discussing it are 2000+ FIDE.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hater
Now that we've gotten you to admit that GM's actually dominate bullet, too, we can dispense with some of your earlier comments about bullet being mere mouse-racing, or being meaningless, or not showing skill, etc. If it were so dissimilar to 'real' chess, then 'real' chess GM's would not likely be attracted to it.
09 May 08
5 edits
By reading my comments and the linked page with full comprehension, you would realize that you can dispense of nothing. Your point is one I raised myself. I have always stated that blitz (including bullet) is a caricature of chess ability and poor representation of overall chess strength. That GMs try to dominate all forms of chess, means little - and I explained why. For one, if a GM is good in A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and blitz depends primarily on A and B, it's no wonder that the GM will be good in blitz too. This still doesn't mean it reflects his full skills in an accurate manner. There may even be GMs who are extremely good in A and B but nowhere near the same level for the rest or vice versa. Relying on blitz results would be like using arm wrestling as the sole measure of physical fitness and strength. I went into many more details in my other posts and I am not about to repeat myself. The posts I made on here and the linked page are long enough as it is.
BTW: I know what a "hater" is. It's just that it's unfair to label those with a different opinion as haters. It' not out of jealousy or any ill feeling that I don't value blitz much and don't value bullet at all. In fact, I guess I should say it's the best test of skill purely out of self-interest- my blitz rating is 400 points higher than my standard. However, making such claims would go against sound reason.
EDIT: Finally got rid of boldness and post cutoff!
09 May 08
Originally posted by range blastsBlitz at 1 minute achieves nothing other than how quickly you can click the mouse. There is no time to think and you just have to move on instinct and even then I usually lose on time.
I've had this question for a while, by having a bunch of very hard time controlled games, does it help you see good moves faster? I have been able to consistently play and beat 1500-1700 in 1 min 0 seconds, does this mean *ANYTHING*?
Playing with a time control of 10 minutes is a different matter as there is time to click the mouse and you get a chance to hone your "quick thinking" skills.
5 minutes is OK but is somewhere in between as you can strat "thinking" but end up with an irrelevant rush at the end resulting in too many "won" games being lost on time.
Just my personnal thoughts but if you like bullet chess at 1 minute a game don't let me stop you playing it.
09 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by exigentskyBy reading my comments and the linked page with full comprehension...
By reading my comments and the linked page with full comprehension, you would realize that you can dispense of nothing. Your point is one I raised myself. I have always stated that blitz (including bullet) is a caricature of chess ability and poor representation of overall chess strength. That GMs try to dominate all forms of chess, means little - and I e s would go against sound reason.
EDIT: Finally got rid of boldness and post cutoff!
That kind of BS may fool others, but it won't work on me. The problem is that you're trying to have it both ways. On one hand, you'll admit that bullet chess is "chess" enough to draw the interest of GM's, but on the other, you want to write it off as nothing more than mouse-racing, and not a real test of chess skill. Either you cannot see the contradiction in your own position, or you are being deliberately deceitful.
By your 'logic', we could claim that correspondence adds I, J, and K [books, databases, and analysis boards] to the set of chess skills. We could then claim that OTB tournaments are 'not a full test of chess skill' and pompously write off the winners of slow chess tournaments based on their obvious failure to exhibit the full set of skills.
Exigentsky wrote: "Relying on blitz results would be like using arm wrestling as the sole measure of physical fitness and strength."
More doublespeak. Earlier, you claimed that bullet does not even offer a glimpse of skill, and now you're admitting it can actually show certain chess skills. But don't let self-contradictions spoil the crusade!
Exigentsky wrote: BTW: I know what a "hater" is. It's just that it's unfair to label those with a different opinion as haters.
No, these two sentences just showed that you don't know what it is. It has nothing to do with the fact that you disagree with me [or anyone else]. You are a hater for disparaging OP's achievement as mere mouse-racing. OP, up to that point, had not offered an opinion on bullet chess at all, so you couldn't possibly have disagreed with him.
09 May 08
Originally posted by Dragon FireI love how the generic "you" becomes "I" in a single sentence. That's the real problem most of you have with bullet, isn't it? You're no good at it, so of course it is 'worthless'.
Blitz at 1 minute achieves nothing other than how quickly you can click the mouse. There is no time to think and you just have to move on instinct and even then I usually lose on time.
09 May 08
4 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambitI am glad that you're so much smarter than the others here so you aren't fooled by my BS. 😛 These personal attacks are disgusting. I have no interest in fooling you or anyone else and hold no crusade against blitz or bullet. I certainly would have nothing to gain. In fact, I play blitz myself (except bullet) and actually perform better than in standard chess. Moreover, your nitpicking on minor details shows more desperation than a strong argument. Either you're missing the point or are avoiding it with all your energy. Given that I'm not writing a thesis, but an informal forum post, it is expected that there will be some imprecision of language and careless expressions. For example, a glimpse of chess skill may not mean the same thing to me as it does to you. Moreover, simply because I think bullet is a better representation of how good you're at mouse racing than chess, it doesn't mean that it is ALL there is. There is some skill involved, but most of it is not chess skill or any skill that I value. If we're to be general, there is skill involved in doing anything well - even mouse racing. The gist of my position should be obvious and hasn't changed.
[b]By reading my comments and the linked page with full comprehension...
That kind of BS may fool others, but it won't work on me. The problem is that you're trying to have it both ways. On one hand, you'll admit that bullet chess is "chess" enough to draw the interest of GM's, but on the other, you want to write it off as nothing more than mouse- ] on bullet chess at all, so you couldn't possibly have disagreed with him.[/b]
Furthermore, I've already explained the point about GMs and I won't be drawn into your misrepresentations of my position. My greatest problem with blitz and bullet are their very nature - as I explained in the linked page. You offer a false dilemma and a strawman. I won't repeat myself because you bring it up again and again with no relevance to what I wrote.
As for OTB tournaments, you are basing your argument on the questionable premise that CC tests more skills. I think it takes away even more than it adds and that only OTB shows the player's true strength. There he is fully on his own with no books, videos, databases, analysis boards, etc. Moreover, there is the pressure of the clock but with reasonable time.
Regarding "hater," it's funny that you persist in discussing something so trivial and tangential. My initial comment was tongue in cheek anyway - hence the smiley face. Apart from being combative and having a knack for the petty, you have little goal. The original poster asked what it means to beat someone at 1 0 and I gave my opinion - just as you have given yours. Neither of us has a monopoly on truth. My goal wasn't to denigrate his accomplishment, it was to answer his question. If this disparages his achievement, so be it, but I am not a "hater" since this was not my motivation and the context encouraged this expression. Your other point about disagreeing doesn't make sense to me. Disagreeing is simply a difference in opinion - time and sequence is not pertinent. Maybe you can elaborate. Although, honestly, it feels like arguing with an 8 year old about why he has to go to bed or do his chores. There is no substance or logic - it's just a fight filled with personal attacks and intellectual dishonesty. Everyone can only lose. You are no longer contributing to provide further insight or to learn anything yourself.
BTW: Have you wondered why some of us aren't good at bullet? Could it be, just maybe that we don't value it and so don't invest much time and effort in it? I've played bullet maybe three times until I decided that I cared about quality and liked to think/analyze more rather than play on impulse or for time-out. The essential quality of chess was missing and it was empty. Moreover, not being good at X doesn't suddenly make X a meaningful activity or skill. I certainly wouldn't care if I was less capable at catching flies, for instance. As I mentioned before, portraying us as poor bullet players rather than addressing our statements is merely the fallacy of poisoning the well and a red herring.
09 May 08
Originally posted by SwissGambitIt is worthless therefore I have no desire to be good at it. Not the other way round.
I love how the generic "you" becomes "I" in a single sentence. That's the real problem most of you have with bullet, isn't it? You're no good at it, so of course it is 'worthless'.
09 May 08
Originally posted by exigentskyExigentsky wrote: These personal attacks are disgusting.
I am glad that you're so much smarter than the others here so you aren't fooled by my BS. 😛 These personal attacks are disgusting. I have no interest in fooling you or anyone else and hold no crusade against blitz or bullet. I certainly would have nothing to gain. In fact, I play blitz myself (except bullet) and actually perform better than in standard c ...[text shortened]... tements is merely the fallacy of poisoning the well and a red herring.
Like suggesting I did not fully comprehend your post and then admitting that you use imprecise wording and careless expressions? Right. That was pretty disgusting. [And wait till we get to the bottom of your latest post....]
Exigentsky wrote: In fact, I play blitz myself (except bullet)...
Key words. I hope people bear this in mind if/when they read any future screeds from you on this issue.
Exigentsky wrote: Moreover, your nitpicking on minor details shows more desperation than a strong argument.
I am trying to get you to clarify your position. If I don't what you really think about this issue, how can I make a strong argument against it? If I tackle version B of your argument, you'll then act like version A is the only one that ever existed, and vice versa.
"Glimpse" means "to get a brief look at", according to m-w.com. Wouldn't you agree with that definition?
Exigentsky wrote: Furthermore, I've already explained the point about GMs and I won't be drawn into your misrepresentations of my position.
If only you had just one position....
Exigentsky wrote: There he is fully on his own with no books, videos, databases, analysis boards, etc.
All of which he can legally have 5 minutes before the game starts. The idea that we play chess solely on our own brainpower is charmingly old-fashioned, but easily refuted.
Exigentsky wrote: Moreover, there is the pressure of the clock but with reasonable time.
Go watch any tournament with sudden death time controls. Odds are, you'll see a game that ends very much like a bullet game - with the players rapidly banging pieces around. The clock has exactly the same effect on that kind of game as it does in bullet. It cannot be 'reasonable' in one scenario and not the other.
Exigentsky wrote: Regarding "hater," it's funny that you persist in discussing something so trivial and tangential.
You also persisted in that discussion - and the comment after the initial comment showed that you did not understand what the word meant at all. My comment was warranted.
Exigentsky wrote: Your other point about disagreeing doesn't make sense to me. Disagreeing is simply a difference in opinion...
"Hater" applied to your comments to OP. OP had not offered any opinion on the matter. Therefore, you cannot possibly disagree with him, since he has given nothing to be disagreed with. [I can't believe I have to explain this a 2nd time 😛]
Exigentsky wrote: Although, honestly, it feels like arguing with an 8 year old about why he has to go to bed or do his chores.
Thank you for revealing yourself to be a complete hypocrite. If you're so disgusted by personal attacks, why do you use them so readily?
Exigentsky wrote: Everyone can only lose. You are no longer contributing to provide further insight or to learn anything yourself.
On the contrary, I am providing some valuable insight to the rest of the forum of audience, even if you will not acknowledge its merit.
Exigentsky wrote: I've played bullet maybe three times until I decided that I cared about quality and liked to think/analyze more rather than play on impulse or for time-out. The essential quality of chess was missing and it was empty.
Some of the old men at the local chess club don't like 5-minute chess because it's too fast for them. Hell, some don't even want to play with a clock at all. They claim it ruins the game, just like you claim it ruins bullet, and yet the chess world obviously does not accept that claim. I'm fine with people playing whatever form of chess they enjoy most, but I take issue when they insist on knocking blitz, or just timed chess in general, as meaningless clock-punching.
Exigentsky wrote: Moreover, not being good at X doesn't suddenly make X a meaningful activity or skill.
However, trying X for a very short while, and not even bothering to try to get better at it, makes you less qualified to comment on whether it is a meaningful activity.
Exigentsky wrote: I certainly wouldn't care if I was less capable at catching flies, for instance.
But you'd probably write a killer screed on how fly-catching has little value.
Exigentsky wrote: As I mentioned before, portraying us as poor bullet players rather than addressing our statements is merely the fallacy of poisoning the well and a red herring.
[Not that I expect you to read what others write, but] DragonFire portrayed himself as a bad bullet player. I had nothing to do with that. I strongly suspected it applied to other players in this thread as well, but I made no definitive claim that it did. [And why are you so worried about logical fallacies when you're very comfortable with Ad Hominems?]
09 May 08
Originally posted by Dragon FireIt can't be the other way around. You gave up too quickly to know if it was worthless or not. Even slow chess has a steep learning curve. What if a new chess player lost their first 2-3 slow games and proceeded to tell you that chess as a whole was worthless? Would you take their opinion seriously?
It is worthless therefore I have no desire to be good at it. Not the other way round.