Post by petejwatts on Dec 1, 2014 11:51:24 GMT -5
alas showing up little in November means that my pool of Fischer mode players seems to have evaporated but a new development has occurred - 3 mins instead of 5, on Ali's board. Many folks who blanch at the thought of 5 min will positively swoon at the thought of 3. I even remember FIDE committee member Stewart Reuben asking "How can anyone play a game in just 3 minutes?2 a few years ago. 3 is by no means a record - 2 or even 1 minute is often played, especially online. As someone who often loses on time, I was wary - only to find I did better than over 5! 3 has several advantages over 5, such as quicker turn over so more games can be played and less tie to wait - handy if you're a weaker player who rarely gets to stay on. It can also be more exciting. Also it's a great leveller. Strong players are usually strong over any time period, but as a loose generality if youre up against a stronger player then you have a better chance over a shorter time period. One reason is that even SuperGMs make blunders, and theyre more likely to make them the shorter the distance. So are you too of course, but over a longer period they will make hardly any, whereas in a short one they are more likely to make one on an occasion you dont - and youve got them!
An oddity Ive found is that I think I might actually play *better* chess over 3 than 5. I dont just play faster I change my style, and it seems to work. Certainly, contrary to popular myth, 5 min spoils my longer game and I believe most people are the same, though they usually claim otherwise. I find over the longer time period I consider moves that I wouldnt over a shorter one, and play them, and theyre actually worse than my usual moves, and also of course I'm unfamiliar with the positions that emerge. This leads into my advice to newbies worrying about how to play 5 min, or moving to 3.
My advice to newbies is, when you get the hang of it, Blitz is *easier* than longer chess. The reason is that while your play may be weaker as a result of having to move faster, so will your opponents - so it tends to cancel out. So rather than having to strain your brain working out sll those combinations, just play by instinct - and your move if not the best, may well be good enough.
There are two ways in which players adapt to blitz conditions, that come even more in to play the faster the game is. The first and most popular is to be very attacking, playing gambits and sacrifices that probably arent sound in the cold light of day but need very accurate play to refute, which your opponent just doesnt have time to work out. If you blunder you may lose material or initiative but you'll rarely be killed stone dead. You may still be ahead on time and win anyway. however if the defender makes one slip you might do massive damage, from winning major material right up to mate.
The other way is almost the opposite - to play solid conservative chess allowing you to rattle off moves without creating any weaknesses for yourself. A common mistake novices make is they think exchanges are *attacking* moves. Unless they are gaining material or positional advantages (often via a sacrifice) they are not. Generally speaking in the Middle Game they reduce the tension and hence are in fact Defensive moves. In the Endgame piece exchanges usually increase the relative strength of a material advantage but if you are pawns up then paradoxically you usually have better chances the more that remain on the board. (Why am I telling you all this?!) "Patzer sees a check, Patzer plays a check." is a common chess saying. "Always give check, it might be mate." is another joke often made about weak players. However the fact is that if you give check you cant actually stalemate, which can be handy in the final scramble. SImilarly captures or checks to the Queen or other valuable pieces are usually *safe* moves that may allow you to clear the air in a coplex position util a sipler one emerges that you can handle.
Knowing whether to complicate with attacking, often sacrificial moves, and when to play defensively is something that you will pick u as you get used to a new shorter speed.
Well there you are folks - Pete's Complete Guide to Patzer Blitz.
An oddity Ive found is that I think I might actually play *better* chess over 3 than 5. I dont just play faster I change my style, and it seems to work. Certainly, contrary to popular myth, 5 min spoils my longer game and I believe most people are the same, though they usually claim otherwise. I find over the longer time period I consider moves that I wouldnt over a shorter one, and play them, and theyre actually worse than my usual moves, and also of course I'm unfamiliar with the positions that emerge. This leads into my advice to newbies worrying about how to play 5 min, or moving to 3.
My advice to newbies is, when you get the hang of it, Blitz is *easier* than longer chess. The reason is that while your play may be weaker as a result of having to move faster, so will your opponents - so it tends to cancel out. So rather than having to strain your brain working out sll those combinations, just play by instinct - and your move if not the best, may well be good enough.
There are two ways in which players adapt to blitz conditions, that come even more in to play the faster the game is. The first and most popular is to be very attacking, playing gambits and sacrifices that probably arent sound in the cold light of day but need very accurate play to refute, which your opponent just doesnt have time to work out. If you blunder you may lose material or initiative but you'll rarely be killed stone dead. You may still be ahead on time and win anyway. however if the defender makes one slip you might do massive damage, from winning major material right up to mate.
The other way is almost the opposite - to play solid conservative chess allowing you to rattle off moves without creating any weaknesses for yourself. A common mistake novices make is they think exchanges are *attacking* moves. Unless they are gaining material or positional advantages (often via a sacrifice) they are not. Generally speaking in the Middle Game they reduce the tension and hence are in fact Defensive moves. In the Endgame piece exchanges usually increase the relative strength of a material advantage but if you are pawns up then paradoxically you usually have better chances the more that remain on the board. (Why am I telling you all this?!) "Patzer sees a check, Patzer plays a check." is a common chess saying. "Always give check, it might be mate." is another joke often made about weak players. However the fact is that if you give check you cant actually stalemate, which can be handy in the final scramble. SImilarly captures or checks to the Queen or other valuable pieces are usually *safe* moves that may allow you to clear the air in a coplex position util a sipler one emerges that you can handle.
Knowing whether to complicate with attacking, often sacrificial moves, and when to play defensively is something that you will pick u as you get used to a new shorter speed.
Well there you are folks - Pete's Complete Guide to Patzer Blitz.