Quote:
Originally Posted by Do it Right
I think it's hugely beneficial beyond a certain level. 1500 level players, for instance, I think should not be playing blitz because the games tend to be decided by fairly gross blunders. It's bad not only because the format induces these players to make such blunders, but also because they come to expect it from their opponents.
I would also differentiate between 5 0 and 3 0. They are hugely different games. I'm a decent blitz player compared to the mean, hitting 2300+ 5-min (not blitz - that would be substantially higher) on ICC on good days. But I don't think I'm strong enough to play 3 0 and be able to improve. That game, like 5 0 would be for a 1500, ends up turning into a silly try-not-to-blunder-or-flag fest for players around my level. I played it on playchess for a few months and only realized how terribly I'd butchered my game when I later played some slower games against a strong player, whereas when playing 5 0 I can typically hop into a 40/2 game without a problem.
Basically I think so long as your games are being decided primarily by chess skill and 'strategy' (whatever that means) as opposed to flag/blunders then it's a reasonable time control for improvement. But that's not as friendly as it sounds. If you strictly abide this then the vast majority of people playing blitz should not be playing blitz if they want to improve.
1500 players should not play classical chess, because the games are often decided by gross blunders, which will often make them come to expect such blunders in classical chess.