The Cons of Blitz Chess - A More Critical Examination

Comments on https://lichess.org/@/dimbro/blog/the-cons-of-blitz-chess-a-more-critical-examination/BARzlAoP

3...dxe4 in the caro-kann two knights is not a mistake

@PrefabShangrila said ^

A lot of people fall into this trap, thinking that the main focus of playing chess is improvement.

I did that for a while and then lichess added the ability to hide ratings. I realized that not only do I play better with it off I also enjoy it more. Now I don't really know what lichess thinks my ratings are and I don't really care either! I'd recommend it to anybody.

731 bullet games, 298 blitz games.

1906 bullet, 1702 blitz.

When you have played more bullet than blitz and have a (significantly) higher bullet rating, is one really in a position to criticise speed chess?

Blitz and bullet are both great fun.

@Fischer_and_Chips88 said ^

731 bullet games, 298 blitz games.

1906 bullet, 1702 blitz.

When you have played more bullet than blitz and have a (significantly) higher bullet rating, is one really in a position to criticise speed chess?

Blitz and bullet are both great fun.

Looking at someones person playing history to criticize them is quite low.

So is downvoting a blog for no good reason.

@PrefabShangrila said ^

This post highlights a problem with how people approach playing chess. A lot of people fall into this trap, thinking that the main focus of playing chess is improvement. That can be a legitimate focus but it can also be a trap. There is more to chess than chess improvement. Whatever happened to having fun? Why is everyone so laser focused on improvement and development? Why is that the number one ...

Imagine writing a blog about chess improvement, and then someone responds to your blog by saying "this blog is a trap, and why do you care about improvement?"

That would be classless.

You see this person simply shared their thoughts on why they think blitz chess is harmful to chess development.

They never said that you shouldn't play for fun.

It's not the post that's the problem, it's your attitude.

The attitude of trying to groundlessly criticize someone for the sake of your own ego.

@RuyLopez1000 said ^

731 bullet games, 298 blitz games.

1906 bullet, 1702 blitz.

When you have played more bullet than blitz and have a (significantly) higher bullet rating, is one really in a position to criticise speed chess?

Blitz and bullet are both great fun.

Looking at someones person playing history to criticize them is quite low.

S...

I was not downvoting for 'no good reason'. I was downvoting to express disagreement, since I disagree with the general sentiment of the post. The reason I disagree with the general sentiment of the post is because blitz is fun.

As for looking at playing history, I don't think it is 'low' at all. If a master who plays only rapid and classical posts about the cons of blitz, their opinion will hold more weight than someone who has played more bullet than any other tc.

As for my own profile, I have played wayyy too much bullet, but at least I don't go around posting about the cons of speed chess.

@Fischer_and_Chips88 said ^

As for looking at playing history, I don't think it is 'low' at all. If a master who plays only rapid and classical posts about the cons of blitz, their opinion will hold more weight than someone who has played more bullet than any other tc.

but at least I don't go around posting about the cons of speed chess.

What a person does is irrelevant, it's the reasoning that should be assessed.

If they play speed chess a lot, that does not mean that their view that speed chess is harmful to development should be dismissed. That is the ad hominem fallacy.

They clearly acknowledge they play speed chess alot: "Sure, it's extremely fun to play - even for me - but there are many negative problems about it."

They reflected on their speed chess play and said there are many negative problems about it.

So this blog is a reflection after the fact.

According to your logic, a player who has what they consider a bad habit, cannot say it is a bad habit because they indulged in it.

It's like saying that a gambling addict cannot say gambling is bad because 'they are gambling', and that the opinion of someone who doesn't gamble 'will hold more weight'.

No, that is not what it is like. It is not Ad Hominem, as I did not insult the person who made the post, personally.

Additionally, my logic does not imply that "a player who has what they consider a bad habit, cannot say it is a bad habit because they indulged in it". As others have pointed out, and I agree with, blitz and bullet are fun from the perspective of leisure, but generally not conducive to general chess improvement. This prompts the question: what is meant by bad habit? It is quite clear that this forum is talking about chess improvement habits, so perhaps it is not relevant to make arguments from the perspective of leisure. In any case, you can simultaneously have 'bad' habits, and know they are bad. I don't quite understand where that 'by your logic' statement came from.

As for the weight of their argument, and the point about the person making it doesn't matter. I would agree in general that reasoning over reasoner should be assessed. But I maintain what I originally wrote ("If a master who plays only rapid and classical posts about the cons of blitz, their opinion will hold more weight than someone who has played more bullet than any other tc."), since a master (as a matter of definition), has more experience.