***For the sake of the discussion, I'm using the term blitz chess to mean 5/0 or faster time controls***

I've heard the axiom many times that blitz chess ruins classical chess, but the more I play, the more I think blitz chess can be a great tool. I'd agree that if someone only plays blitz games for months at a time, then the deep thinking, deep calculation part of their game would probably suffer. But I think blitz chess played often can be a fantastic tactics trainer, as well as a great way to see many different openings in a short period of time.

The reason I brought this up is these past couple of weeks I've been out of town and haven't played any chess at all, classical or blitz. Just posting on this website is it. Tonight I got on ICC and played about an hour and a half of blitz. At first I felt almost rusty, sort of out of sync after a couple of weeks away from chess, but once a few games were under my belt I felt much sharper and back to normal.

I'm curious to hear the board's thoughts on blitz chess and if it has a positive or negative impact on one's game.


*Edit* I alluded to, but forgot to say directly, that I think blitz is great as a supplement to classical chess and lengthy post-game analysis, but not as the primary method of improvement.

I'm with you, I think it's beneficial for your chess and can't see how it could be in any way detrimental. Most of the world's top GMs play speed chess regularly so obviously don't think it's bad for their game otherwise they wouldn't do it. I sometimes wonder if Nakamura's strength has anything to do with his years of playing 3 0 on ICC.

On top of the things you pointed out, blitz also gives you practice at Managing your time when i you don't a have a lot of it, so in time trouble and time scramble situations in classical games you know what you're doing.

Perhaps it does get you out of the habit of calculating deeply but as long as you play classical games regularly as well this should offset it. Blitz chess helping speed up your calculations must be valuable because the more positions you can evaluate per second the stronger your game's going to be .

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.

That also goes without saying that you're also analyzing the games you play - particularly the games you lose. A friend of mine, a GM, claimed you should never spend more time analyzing a game than was spent playing it - maybe he was right, but playing without analyzing is certainly like trying to get ahead by slamming your head into a brick wall.

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.

All games are often decided by blunders. What matters is the magnitude, frequency and take away lesson. And while some 1500 slow time control games will be decided by 'gross' blunders, I think they do make up the minority. And when a game is decided by a gross blunder there's a lot more to learn when you contemplate a position for 10 minutes, put out a move and immediately lose (I'm sure Gelfand will never forget Qf6?? - 'gross' obviously being relative to the players) as opposed to banging out a blitz move, hanging a piece and probably just continuing to play on anyhow because a single piece isn't necessarily decisive in 1500 blitz games.

my point is that a 'gross blunder' is relative. they probably don't think the blunders they make in blitz games are any 'grosser' than you think of your own blunders in blitz games. But I've been having this argument since birth I think.

Well there's no argument here. I agree with you there. Many people, especially those that end up stuck in the lower rungs of skill, have extreme difficulty with objective analysis of their own play. If players understood why and how they were playing poorly, there'd be about 99% fewer openings book sold and no more 1500s.

Interesting points about 5/0 and 3/0 being completely different games, I think you're exactly right. I sort of came to a similar conclusion, although not as well stated and not with much backup. Basically I enjoy playing 5-min much more because I feel like I actually have some time to think in unfamiliar positions and briefly figure out the position, whereas 3-min is basically all intuition with almost no time to see what's going on. I've always thought 5-min is much more conducive, at my level, to learning than 3-min.

An IM recommended to me that after every blitz game, take 5 mins and use Chessbase to go over the opening that was played. Nothing too fancy, just find out the best line vs. the line you actually played. That's one of the most helpful tips anyone has ever told me, it REALLY helps with opening play and consequently middlegame planning.

I've had blitz recommended to me over and over by much stronger players as a way to practice openings and learn particular themes in an opening you are learning. The trick is to have your opponent play a set of games with you in that particular opening. I do have a strong opponent that will do this with me, so I feel it is a good tool. I don't like blitz at all other than that unless it is with a big increment or delay (outside the scope of this discussion of 5/0 or less).

Kind of echoing the above, I've found that exposure to various openings is the most useful part of blitz. I've been hooked on 15-minute lately (which by my plodding, methodical standards counts as blitz), and I've found that it's greatly improved my opening play against Sicilians and the various Ruy Lopez sidelines people will sometimes employ. "Oh, I haven't seen that before, I wonder how to respond to it" and looking it up later seems to help a ton, as does having the repetition of being able to play the same openings over and over again.

But other than that, I don't think it helps much at all. As was mentioned above, us amateurs are poorly equipped to understand our mistakes and why they were mistakes. I always thought I did, but when I started having much stronger players analyze my games with me, they'd show me stuff I wouldn't have imagined, where the seeds of my problems were planted half-a-dozen moves before I even realized there was a problem at all.