28

As I commented, there are several reasons why people play fast, among them: One of the reasons I often see is fear of time trouble. Many amateurs are not really aware of whether the time they have left will "be enough", so start to move way too fast early on. They won't feel confident to play faster games either for that same reason. It could be the case ...


17

I see it all the time on the net It also happens a lot over the board. There are two main reasons players play the moves very fast when they have a lot of time: They are in their preparation and the game may conclude (with a win or pre-arranged draw) before they leave their preparation. You often see this at the highest levels. They are sufficiently far ...


12

I think the biggest reason is that using your time efficiently is an acquired skill just as learning tactics is. When you are not as strong, you do not know as much, and thus, you do not have as much to think about. As you acquire more overall chess skill, you have more to think about, and thus, you spend more time thinking. It is also a matter of practice. ...


11

The way ratings are mathematically defined, they don't express the absolute strength of players, but only the strength of players in a pool relative to each other. So there is no meaning in trying to compare blitz rating and standard rating, the way you are trying to suggest. For the same reason you cannot compare computer ratings with human ratings, ...


9

The earliest Armageddon games I can find go back to the Women's World Chess Championship 2001, and the FIDE World Championship in 2002, which GM Ruslan Ponomariov won. This is probably a fairly complete list since Armageddon really only lends itself to knock-out tournaments or matches, and the question did ask primarily about GMs and Armageddon. There might ...


9

It's also a possible strategy to play with the opponent's mind by playing quick and ideal (or unexpected) moves, though it can be very risky and backfire. Depending on how mentally strong a player is, seeing a few quick and ideal moves done in a succession by the opponent may pressure their mind. If they cannot cope up with the pressure, a blunder may be ...


6

can I force a draw if I am running out of time? Of course! Just swap the queen for the rook. There are two basic possibilities. He keeps the king and rook very close (normal best practice when trying to draw this difficult endgame). In that case every time you threaten the rook with your queen he must move the rook and keep it close to the king. It should ...


4

Moving your queen next to your king and moving your king in a diamond around your queen for up to 30 moves seems like it’d be decently fast and not need much thought if you’re really low on time. Every move up to and including the draw is as short as possible, distance-wise.


4

I don't see my situation pointed out by anyone here, so I'll add an answer: I have been, for quite some time, playing only (online, of course) bullet games. On chess.com, out of 3889 games, 3192 are bullet. And on lichess I have 2634 bullet games out of 3215 total games. Recently, I decided that I want to stop playing bullet, and I started focusing on ...


3

It's a long list indeed. One of the reasons I prefer such games over bullet games is it gives me a buffer. If I encounter a tricky situation, I have time to think about it. In Bullet games, you must play fast. In longer games, it's optional. If I don't need much time for the first 10 moves, I may still need a lot of it for the next 10. Especially with ...


3

Generally speaking, the faster the time control, the worse the play will be, but the relative strength of the players will be the same and reflected in the rating. It could be said the the more tactical player will have a lower variance between the different time controls. My personal example has my quick OTB rating being over 2300, but my classical OTB ...


3

I think, yesterday, I have answered such a question here. I am just pasting the answer and adding a few resources to it. You should keep these in your mind. Smooth Transition: As per other answers, I think you should try 15+0 [Rapid] >> 10+5 >> 10+0 >> 5+5 / 5+3 [Blitz] >> 5+0 >> 3+2 >> 3+0 >> 2+1[Bullet] >> 1+...


3

I would tend to think that you are the very first person to propose that, mostly because I really do not think it would work for this reason: Even with the control you proposed, 90 minutes to 120, the guy with 90 minutes still has A LOT of time to think not only on his time, but also on the opponent's time. That makes draw odds a MUCH larger advantage at ...


2

From my personal experience - I'm one of those people who generally plays fast even in long time controls, and a lot of it is because I don't really know what to do with all that time... Usually I'll look at a position for a minute, maybe two at the most, and play whatever is the best move I see - because my own experience is that at that point I'm not ...


2

if I analyze a game played in blitz, move by move, between two 2600s, should I expect the moves to be of the same quality as the moves between two 2600s in classical? Of course, I am sure that you mean relative to the speed at which they are required to think for each time control. Faster moves are certainly going to be weaker. As others mentioned, ...


2

1600 in classical, 1400 in rapid, and 1200 in blitz Blitz is a little different to classical. Fast mouse clicking is an important skills in blitz, so people are not used to spamming pre-moves won't do good in blitz. No point up by a piece with only a few seconds left on the clock. Yes, your rating reflect how well you perform in that particular time ...


1

I don't know for sure on this, but if you go on Lichess, there is an option to add 15 seconds to your opponent's clock in live chess, I do not know with computer chess. I usually use Chess.com's live chess VS a bot.


1

No. There is data. But it has not even been aggregated. Nobody is known to have done meaningful statistics on that data. Armageddon is somewhat arbitrary as it tries to balance the effect of time versus the probability that black could draw or win so as to have a definitive play off winner instead of a long long string of drawn games. But it is still ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible