I think that Judit Polgár, in How I beat Fischer's record, talks about her and her sisters' training. I think she and Sofia would play numerous blitz games throughout the day (usually blindfold, without even setting a board). If I remember well, she says it helped them to learn openings and to play well under time pressure.
I also agree with your point about how different improvement strategies (e.g., studying openings) have to be carefully planned, not avoided altogether. I teach mathematics and I see the same thing in my field: some people abuse memorization, while others ban it completely. In mathematics, the correct approach is a balanced one, in which understanding (deep thoughts) and repetition (pattern identification development) have each its own place. I assume it is not different in chess.
The exact quote: "Another common method of preparing was playing blitz games and different kind of rapid games. My father was always looking for opportunities for us to practise and so he invited many different sparring partners to come to our place. This intense practice developed our skills of rapid orientation in unknown positions and a feel for tactical nuances, which we could describe as intuition. It also helped us to memorize the opening moves better and to become acquainted with typical middlegame and endgame positions. Another positive effect was that I felt less pressure or tension during tournaments." (p. 11)
I have. I think it is somewhat dated and probably misunderstood. It is mostly descriptive, but it has been assumed to be prescriptive. Not "this is how good problem solvers seem to think," but "this is how you should think if you want to solve problems." Close, but not the same thing.
Nate - typically beginners are discouraged from playing blitz because it develops bad habits. Is there a rating floor at which blitz (like 5|3) is beneficial?
This is my point. The bad habit thing is nonsense but you should play a time control where your focus is on Chess not on the time pressure. 15+10 is a good starting point as you become more skilled you can gradually try faster time controls.
Excellent post and the point about needing to get reps in, especially as adult starting late in chess lands true. If only resorting to classical games the time to get exposure to the tactics that I work on and the patterns that present in chess could take time that isn’t available. The games can be fun as well and in a way playing them with a goal of trying to find tactical opportunities. The worksheet seems that it will be helpful so thanks for that idea.
I would say yes, in a way. Like I argue in my Kobe post, trying to be emotionless is a trap. Be strongly engaged, but genuinely tie your emotions to curiosity about the game itself.
“Exception that proves the rule” is from when prove used to have the meaning of “test”, as still carried in the other words like “probe” and “probation”.
I can't disagree with anything you've said, but thought of one counter-point with respect to Botvinnik: How much blitz was played before chess clocks were invented? I doubt the greatest players of the 19th century played. None were near Botvinnik's level but he innovated in many other ways that pushed him above his peers; I think its possible he told the truth or near it.
No, but in all honesty, Morphy is said to have played very quickly, while his opponents sat around forever drinking champagne. He crushed them anyway of course.
I see that 80-95% of the population lived in extreme poverty back when Morphy was playing chess. It is probably not a big leap to think that those who spent time playing where not worried about where their next meal was coming from. This might explain the champagne and casual atmosphere from those who saw chess as simply entertainment. Morphy obviously took it seriously while the majority did not.
Chess clocks were invented in the 1880s. Botvinnik (born in 1911) certainly had access to them throughout his career. Many top Soviet players (Bronstein, Tal, Smyslov, Petrosian, etc.) played blitz regularly.
If blitz really is as beneficial as Nate says it is -- and I think it is -- Botvinnik would have been severely handicapping himself by passing up on this training opportunity. That seems out of character for someone so fanatical about analysis, preparation, physical training, etc.
On the other hand, Botvinnik also cultivated a persona of a "serious, scientific" chess player, so maybe he was telling the truth.
I never said Botvinnik didn't use chess clocks. I was suggesting that because the clocks were not invented until nearly the end of the 19th century, the greatest players of that era such as Morphy, Anderssen, and Steinitz maybe didn't play much blitz either and still got pretty good at chess.
I see. As far as 19th century play goes, people still played fast chess, it just wasn't as "institutionalized" as it became with the advent of chess clocks.
Sometimes they used other mechanisms to enforce time limits (e.g., bells were rung every few seconds, and you had to make your move immediately at the bell). But often, it would be more of an "honor system" approach. You were expected to play quickly and not take too much time. In the 19th century, when chess was considered a more casual game and people were motivated by "fair play", this seems to have worked well.
I remember reading some descriptions of the 19th century Paris Cafe de la Regence, where it was clear that people played various forms of "fast chess."
I suspect Morphy, Anderssen, et al all played fast chess in some form.
I see the value of blitz as a very good overall chess improvement tool. I don't think this kind of training though is unique to chess. Improving your ability to process information quicker for either mental or physical tasks is touted everywhere for everything as is the search for your flow state. Perhaps the value of blitz or speed training has minimal value though for elo players below 1500 who are still trying to not only learn the variations of a few openings but to get our of the opening without blundering a piece. For titled players I'm sure blitz makes up a large % of the their training time if for no other reason than it's popularity and money. Plus it gives them more "processing" time for analysis, pattern recognition when playing slower formats, i.e. a no brainer.
I think that Judit Polgár, in How I beat Fischer's record, talks about her and her sisters' training. I think she and Sofia would play numerous blitz games throughout the day (usually blindfold, without even setting a board). If I remember well, she says it helped them to learn openings and to play well under time pressure.
I also agree with your point about how different improvement strategies (e.g., studying openings) have to be carefully planned, not avoided altogether. I teach mathematics and I see the same thing in my field: some people abuse memorization, while others ban it completely. In mathematics, the correct approach is a balanced one, in which understanding (deep thoughts) and repetition (pattern identification development) have each its own place. I assume it is not different in chess.
The exact quote: "Another common method of preparing was playing blitz games and different kind of rapid games. My father was always looking for opportunities for us to practise and so he invited many different sparring partners to come to our place. This intense practice developed our skills of rapid orientation in unknown positions and a feel for tactical nuances, which we could describe as intuition. It also helped us to memorize the opening moves better and to become acquainted with typical middlegame and endgame positions. Another positive effect was that I felt less pressure or tension during tournaments." (p. 11)
Have you read How to Solve It? I started it and it was clearly good, but I struggled to make it through, as I don't work in math.
I have. I think it is somewhat dated and probably misunderstood. It is mostly descriptive, but it has been assumed to be prescriptive. Not "this is how good problem solvers seem to think," but "this is how you should think if you want to solve problems." Close, but not the same thing.
Nate - typically beginners are discouraged from playing blitz because it develops bad habits. Is there a rating floor at which blitz (like 5|3) is beneficial?
This is my point. The bad habit thing is nonsense but you should play a time control where your focus is on Chess not on the time pressure. 15+10 is a good starting point as you become more skilled you can gradually try faster time controls.
Excellent post and the point about needing to get reps in, especially as adult starting late in chess lands true. If only resorting to classical games the time to get exposure to the tactics that I work on and the patterns that present in chess could take time that isn’t available. The games can be fun as well and in a way playing them with a goal of trying to find tactical opportunities. The worksheet seems that it will be helpful so thanks for that idea.
A topic that recently came up in poker circles: is it possible to tilt too little?
I would say yes, in a way. Like I argue in my Kobe post, trying to be emotionless is a trap. Be strongly engaged, but genuinely tie your emotions to curiosity about the game itself.
“Exception that proves the rule” is from when prove used to have the meaning of “test”, as still carried in the other words like “probe” and “probation”.
Aha, that makes sense. If you apply the usual meaning of “prove” it’s obviously nonsense.
I can't disagree with anything you've said, but thought of one counter-point with respect to Botvinnik: How much blitz was played before chess clocks were invented? I doubt the greatest players of the 19th century played. None were near Botvinnik's level but he innovated in many other ways that pushed him above his peers; I think its possible he told the truth or near it.
That’s why they sucked!
No, but in all honesty, Morphy is said to have played very quickly, while his opponents sat around forever drinking champagne. He crushed them anyway of course.
I see that 80-95% of the population lived in extreme poverty back when Morphy was playing chess. It is probably not a big leap to think that those who spent time playing where not worried about where their next meal was coming from. This might explain the champagne and casual atmosphere from those who saw chess as simply entertainment. Morphy obviously took it seriously while the majority did not.
Chess clocks were invented in the 1880s. Botvinnik (born in 1911) certainly had access to them throughout his career. Many top Soviet players (Bronstein, Tal, Smyslov, Petrosian, etc.) played blitz regularly.
If blitz really is as beneficial as Nate says it is -- and I think it is -- Botvinnik would have been severely handicapping himself by passing up on this training opportunity. That seems out of character for someone so fanatical about analysis, preparation, physical training, etc.
On the other hand, Botvinnik also cultivated a persona of a "serious, scientific" chess player, so maybe he was telling the truth.
I guess we'll never know.
As with anything, there are many paths. But I think some blitz is helpful for most players.
I never said Botvinnik didn't use chess clocks. I was suggesting that because the clocks were not invented until nearly the end of the 19th century, the greatest players of that era such as Morphy, Anderssen, and Steinitz maybe didn't play much blitz either and still got pretty good at chess.
I see. As far as 19th century play goes, people still played fast chess, it just wasn't as "institutionalized" as it became with the advent of chess clocks.
Sometimes they used other mechanisms to enforce time limits (e.g., bells were rung every few seconds, and you had to make your move immediately at the bell). But often, it would be more of an "honor system" approach. You were expected to play quickly and not take too much time. In the 19th century, when chess was considered a more casual game and people were motivated by "fair play", this seems to have worked well.
I remember reading some descriptions of the 19th century Paris Cafe de la Regence, where it was clear that people played various forms of "fast chess."
I suspect Morphy, Anderssen, et al all played fast chess in some form.
I see the value of blitz as a very good overall chess improvement tool. I don't think this kind of training though is unique to chess. Improving your ability to process information quicker for either mental or physical tasks is touted everywhere for everything as is the search for your flow state. Perhaps the value of blitz or speed training has minimal value though for elo players below 1500 who are still trying to not only learn the variations of a few openings but to get our of the opening without blundering a piece. For titled players I'm sure blitz makes up a large % of the their training time if for no other reason than it's popularity and money. Plus it gives them more "processing" time for analysis, pattern recognition when playing slower formats, i.e. a no brainer.