boo

Ziryab wrote:  How do you savor each move in a rapid 20 minute game?

 

---

I was referring to correspondence chess, not 20-minute games.  20-minute games are the best I can hope for on most chess servers, but not my ideal way to play. 

Correspondence Chess, Turn-based Chess, Standard Chess, Lightning Chess are all fine games, each in their own right. One is neither better nor more intellectual than another. They are all simply different ways of playing the same game, each of which has its own aficionados.

Many great masters of chess were also speed chess/lightning chess players of outstanding ability : Petrosian, Fischer, Tal, even Karpov for examples.  Above is pictured Reuben Fine who was the US speed chess (10 sec./move) champ in 1942-43-44-45. I can only say, play whatever you like, but don't begrudge or belittle anyone for their own personal preference.

 

Vive la différence!

How! How! How! The lady speaks the truth and nothing but the truth. But the question is, my dear Watson, how can someone truly enjoy chess that just when it is getting axciting ( if ever a one move per day game can ever be ) the opponent logs off, only to be seen in... well... maybe... hmm... possibly... perhaps... probably... hopefully ... please-please-please-stop making me suffer-one-two-five-days later?

But if Batgirl has decreed that it is enjoyable I will hasten to concur! Because I have declared my love for Batgirl!  And in love it is give-and-take and harmony!

Vive Batgirl! Vive Las Vegas! Vive La Belle Paris!

zoot allures!!

Nice going batgirl!  The discussion should be stamped closed by that posting.  Let's celebrate our differnces...  Vive la différence!  The human brain is such a powerful machine, and you can go slow, or go lightning fast. 

batgirl wrote:

Correspondence Chess, Turn-based Chess, Standard Chess, Lightning Chess are all fine games, each in their own right. One is neither better nor more intellectual than another. They are all simply different ways of playing the same game, each of which has its own aficionados.

[snip]

Vive la différence!

---

 I play a lot of blitz, such that five minute games seem slow, and I enjoy them. But, I would not go so far as refer to speed chess as an intellectual pursuit as I would correspondence chess.

 

Now, before you call me a sexist in pointing out that I have drawn on a particular male-oriented notion of thinking in my definition of intellectual, and that intuition (at which women are reputed to excell) can make a huge difference in a blitz players' success, please bear in mind that I will agree that the term intellectual pursuit can equally denote the intutive processes at work in blitz as well as the extensive calculation and deep positional analysis of slow chess. But, the connotations of intellectual, as the term is generally used, refers to rich layered complexity of things and ideas that must be examined in great detail from many points of view. With respect to chess, the intellectual exercise is concerned with the truth of the position. Blitz does not live up to this pursuit of truth.

 

I 've played many thousands of games of blitz, and nearly every one was decided either by the clock or by gross tactical blunders. Many of my correspondence and turn-based games also have been decided by tactical blunders (often mine, but more often by my opponents ), but a few have been decided by positional nuances in which a poor move on say move 20 results in an untenable position by say move 30. I have struggled to play positionally in three minute blitz, but the advantages I accrue from such a strategy more often is reflected by the clock than the position on the board.

 

One must think, and think fast in blitz; turn-based chess, however, attracts lovers of thinking (philosophers i.e. intekllectuals) because even patzers like me can participate in the quest for truth that occupies much of the efforts of grandmasters. 

Many people who are fine chess players can't play blitz. I think it's because they haven't exercised that intellectual area of their brain as much as others. Some fine blitz players can't seem to duplicate their success in long games for the same reason.  Just as sprinters may not be good distance runners and marathon runners may be poor sprinters, both must be fit and conditioned for the type of running they choose.

To me, asking whether one is more intellectual than the other is akin to asking which is more artistic, the writing or the performance of a piece of music.

 

I don't claim there isn't a difference in the type of intellectualism involved among forms of chess, but rather that, simply because they are different, doesn't make one intellectual endeavor superior to another - it just makes it different as a form of intellectual recreation.

 

there is no quality on games played very fast. classical chess all the way!

2hours per side until move 40, additional 1hour per side till move 60 is a bit enough 

i always look at this chess clubers who always play blitz, and i can see they are blundering their pieces away.

Well, you've said it Freidrich! 2hours per side and an additional 1hour til move 60 is a bit enough. Permit to qualify your throw-away words as being 'is more than enough'. That IS the point. Correspondence chess is waiting and suffering for DAYS on the next move. Not two hours. Not an additional hour. But DAYS! Come on intellectuals, do you really want to procrastinate that long before the truth comes a-becking? Ban Correspondence Chess! Ban the kings and Queens! In real life mind! he he he! Long Live Live Chess! Vive Batgirl! Vive La Belle Paris!

spair75 wrote:

I don't know about u guys but correspondence chess is truly a pain fr me. I simply can't play it. I have tried but I simply cant concentrate on games that you have to wait hours and hours on. It should be banned! When is Live Chess here!!! Vive Live Chess!

---

I can never understand, guys like you. Why did you join or indeed why do stay in a chess site, that you don't like. Then you say it should be banned. Listen very carefully, I will say this only once. We love this site, we have tried many other sites but we know this is the best site. If you don't like it stop complaining, just GO AWAY.   BYEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeee

batgirl wrote:

Many people who are fine chess players can't play blitz. I think it's because they haven't exercised that intellectual area of their brain as much as others. Some fine blitz players can't seem to duplicate their success in long games for the same reason.  Just as sprinters may not be good distance runners and marathon runners may be poor sprinters, both must be fit and conditioned for the type of running they choose.

To me, asking whether one is more intellectual than the other is akin to asking which is more artistic, the writing or the performance of a piece of music.

 

I don't claim there isn't a difference in the type of intellectualism involved among forms of chess, but rather that, simply because they are different, doesn't make one intellectual endeavor superior to another - it just makes it different as a form of intellectual recreation.

 

---

 As an old distance runner, I already have my bias here--sprinters are not runners. This bias was reinforced quite a few years ago whan a friend took me to task for calling Neil Diamond a musician. Diamond, I was informed, is a performer; musicians create. Now, the lines get blurred quite a bit in much of Jazz, where the interpretive performance, as well as spontaneous composition, is every bit as creative as the words and notes of composers. Likewise the greatest twentieth century American musicians were equally composers and performers: Bob Dylan, The Grateful Dead, Leonard Cohen, Tom Waits, ...

 

As I said before, the term intellectual can be used to denote several forms of thinking, including that called for in blitz. But, to speak of chess as an intellectual pursuit connotes something more, something akin to philosophy. Blitz does not live up to the expectations conjured by this language. A few games of blitz can be like a shot of coffee that gets me ready to return to my work, but to be truly effective, I need a good night's sleep.

It is what it is,if unhappy then do something different. Very simple!

yes queenie said it best! i second the motion!!

I used to be a distance runner too (not marathon, though, not by any means, 10K was my extreme limit). One other truly odd coincidence.... you spoke of American musician/composers/performers, Bob Dylan (my favorite, next to Paul Simon) and Leonard Cohen. I only know a few Leonard Cohen songs, but one of them, "Sisters of Mercy," had been playing in my head all day for some reason. I couldn't remember one of the verses and, as I knew it like the back of my hand, it was driving me to distraction. I couldn't wait to get home to look it up, only to see Mr. Cohen mentioned in your posting. Odd.

I truly understand your point. But there is also a blurry line as I see it. Chess, as opposed to blitz, can be an intellectual pursuit, again as opposed to blitz as an intellectual activity. But the fact of the matter is that is seldom is such. The majority of players, here and elsewhere, whom I've noticed, play a multitude of games simultaneously, relinquishing any credibility that they are devoted to a pursuit of intellectual excellence in any single game.  I'm not saying this is bad, just that it's no more an intellectual pursuit than blitz is in that case and a good blitz player will beat most lesser skilled slow players each at their own speed -  Anand, a great blitz player, given 10 sec./move would likely beat me ten out of ten if I had 3 days/move and nothing else to do.  So, ideally, I agree with you; pragmatically, I hesitate.

 

"if your life is a leaf that the seasons tear off and condemn/

They will bind you with love that is graceful and green as a stem."

                                                                                                    -Leonard Cohen

Leonard Cohen is a musical genius.

I disagree, I think that correspondence chess is great for those of us who don't have more than a minute to spare and still want to play games. Besides, if you don't like then you don't have to play it.

greersome wrote:

After reading these posts, here are my comments (some reinforce other posters' message):

 

1.  Chill

 

2.  Try the online chess here if correspondence is not for you.

 

3.  Correspondence chess is one of my favorite parts of this site.  Why?  I usually keep from 4 to 10 games going at the same time.  Once a day, I log in and have several interesting games to contemplate.  It's relaxing, exercises the mind, and gives me flexibility in my life.  I don't always have time to engage in a full game.   With correspondence chess, I can play when I want.

 

In short, it's all about expectations and what you want to get out of the site.  I've seen many chess sites on the web and Chess.com is by far the best. 

---

 I agree with you 100%.I apologize for double posting.

Funny how some self-declared intellectuals, those who have claimed that they play chess thus are intellectuals ( sic ), reply to an argument by using one-phrase responses to the sound like - GO PLAY SOMEPLACE ELSE, go to yahoo, go to resident evil... etc... etc... . Kills their assumption a little, doesn't it? I have seen ( on tv mind, so I can't say it is gospel truth ) a heavy weight boxer playing a game of chess. Now we all know the heavy weight boxers go about their job bashing other boxers up, which in itself you cannot say that it is an intellectual pursuit. Boxing that is. I doubt that anyone would deem heavy-weight boxers intellectuals. Would you?

Just to add - robots have beaten such great players like Kasparov. Would you qualify robots as intellectuals? I doubt it very much. Chess demands a mechanical way of thinking in resolving the difficulties. Indeed, if you can learn all the different moves there are in the game, in the end you don't even have to 'think' when responding to your opponent moves - such as shown by the chess-playing robots. Almost like a garagist fixing a defective car. Contrary to having endless solutions - none of which is truly the right answer. Viz a writer is an intellectual. A philosopher.

batgirl wrote:

So, ideally, I agree with you; pragmatically, I hesitate.

 

---

 Well said.