From chess

Maybe this seems like a boring joke, but maybe it's also been discussed before - in that case I apologize for digging up information due to my laziness. The chess rating system is a great thing, but as a mediocre rather than former chess player, it seems to me that chess players could be put into at least three different rooms/sections/categories with their ratings and rooms. There are obviously players who think deeply and play seriously and for them it would be good to have a 15 minute time control or a 30 second move. Then there are the fast-paced chess lovers like me, who could have 5-10 minutes per game. And then there are the guys who are completely incomprehensible to me, who play with a 1-2 minute time control. This is not actually chess, but then they could still be given their own room where they can demonstrate their internet speed and other talents. The rating could also be different in each area, because these are three completely different games. Fischer timekeeping can also be set entirely under these three categories, in fact Fischer is only suitable for lightning (i.e. 5-10 min)

Play on the portal www.chessfriends.ru - there the strong will beat you in any weather :)

Maybe I'm too stupid, but I don't seem to understand how your post is related to the topic.

With all due respect to the topic starter, I don't understand: 1) calling players who play with a 2-minute time control (as far as I know, a 1-minute one cannot be used here) "incomprehensible types", because in the topic starter's opinion "it's not really chess". A game with a 2-minute time control is very much chess. I admit that playing successfully with such a time control also requires good reaction speed, but the outcome of the game still depends equally or more on the player's chess ability. The world's top players play online with a 1-2 minute time control, because it is the most interesting for them. There are certainly good chess players who are so slow in thinking or with fingers that they simply cannot be successful in a game with such a short time control, but that is their problem, not the time control's; 2) what benefit would users here get from creating three separate game rooms? If someone doesn't like the time control offered by the challenger, there is an easy way to refuse the game and, if they wish, also justify their refusal.

I even noticed a tournament where the time limit was 1 minute, so I don't think it should be impossible, but that's a pseudo-problem here. I highly doubt that top players play 2-minute chess online. But I don't know any top players today personally, they can undoubtedly watch porn online, so why not play 2-minute chess. However, chess ability comes down to the ability to make short moves and set up opening traps with such a fast time control. In addition, I tend to think that the speed of the internet connection, mouse, operating system and everything else that can no longer be called chess also play a role. Anyway, the point of my post is that completely different people are successful in 2-minute chess, flash chess and long chess, which makes them completely different areas. Regarding the question of different spaces - in my opinion, Fischer chess is currently in a separate space, and why is incomprehensible to me. But it would be much easier if the characters in different categories were separate. Because then these pointless invitations/rejections would be eliminated. As for the rating, then undoubtedly running could also be introduced as a sport. And then a situation arises where Usain Bolt does not accept the challenge of more than 200 meters and Kenyan men do not run less than 3 km. And the explanation of the best runner remains as it is.

You can also challenge your opponent so that the game does not count towards the rating - it saves you nerves. The same option is also available on the portal www.chessfriends.ru. It is good to play 2-minute games to practice your reaction speed.

I mean, I'll try to say it one more time and very slowly. Reaction speed and other things are irrelevant to me, and neither is what chess I want or don't want to play. The thing is that these chess games with different time controls are completely different fields in my opinion. (That's why I brought a comparative example from a sport called running) Without naming names, there are many players who can't be called out in anything other than a 2-minute game, in my opinion they should have their own 2-minute hall and their own rating or non-rating (the rating as such is not that important, it's just that they don't play anything else). Reaction speed is a very difficult thing to train, more physiological, but if you try to do it at all, then in some other way, not by ruining the noble game. But as far as anyone is concerned about it, I myself feel that despite my age, my reaction speed is still very good, but I didn't use this advantage in chess, only in 60 meters and in a hockey goal :)

MrQb's latest post points to his stupidity for the following reasons (the list is not exhaustive): 1) the fact that you can't play with a 1-minute time control here, you can check it in 5 seconds, so to say "I don't believe it" is naive and stupid; 2) doubting that top players play chess with a very short time control online is stupid. There are dozens of chess portals on the Internet, whose members are very well-known top chess players, whom anyone can play against if they are lucky, and most of the time they play 1-2 minute chess. They also hold sample matches of 1-minute games, which anyone can watch. Many top chess players have admitted to playing 1-2 minute chess online in interviews. Among others, it was a hobby of Bobby Fischer in his last years; 3) the reference to watching porn is vulgar, and vulgarity usually goes hand in hand with stupidity; 4) the claim that in the case of a fast time control, "chess ability is reduced to the ability to make short moves and set opening traps" is incorrect and stupid and shows that the person making the claim has a very limited understanding of chess. First, it remains unclear what a "short move" is. Second, 1-2 minute chess, in contrast to chess with a longer time control, gives a better chance to a player who is not very familiar with opening theory. In 1-2 minute chess, the opening can make bad moves on purpose in order to create non-standard sharp positions, from which it can then successfully escape by taking advantage of one's own quick thinking and the opponent's confusion. An opening trap will not help win chess with such a short time control if the achievable position cannot be realized within the remaining time. However, an opening trap is usually fatal to the person who falls into the trap in chess with a longer time control; 5) Fischer chess and regular chess are generally recognized as sufficiently different games to keep separate records of the respective ratings. If someone doesn't understand why, the problem is in the intellect of that person who doesn't understand; 6) the comparison with running is so silly that it would be embarrassing to comment on it separately.

If you don't play fast chess, your rating will be a slow chess rating, but a poor one considering that in long chess it is possible to cooperate with the computer.

It's a bit of a shame that one gentleman tends to get personal, but I'll try to explain my views to him point by point: 1) it's possible to play here with a 1-minute time control. I've seen such a tournament myself. I didn't register. It's a shame that Mr. Harkbrow, who is much more intelligent than me, doesn't know this and hasn't been able to check it in 5 seconds either; 2) yes, maybe I expressed myself incorrectly, there are undoubtedly top players who also play ultra-rapid chess for relaxation. However, it's too much to consider it developmental or their main hobby. It's essentially a show, where chess skill declines and the share of luck increases. It's pointless for a top player to play against an average player with a normal time control; 3) generalization and labeling always go hand in hand with a lack of thinking ability; 4) yes, in 2-minute chess the opening definitely plays a bigger role, in addition to the use of unusual moves. But to praise time control, and to justify deliberately making bad moves and compensating for some player's shortcomings (e.g. in theory), because this can be compensated for perhaps by moving faster, is yet another clever thing from Mr. Hawkbrow that even I, with my limited intelligence, cannot say. Bad is good, as if reading Orwell. A short move is a term that is actually used and what it means, Hawkbrow, with his vast knowledge, could either know or simply come up with. For example, Va1-a8 is a long move, e4-e5 is a long move. Once upon a time, at the end of the Soviet era, there was even such a chess anecdote - unofficial rapid and blitz championships were also held, and an otherwise completely unknown name held the title, he is the champion of short moves and therefore also the Union's blitz champion. The man was not among the classical chess players (at that time the time control was 2.5 hours for 40 moves) even in the first century, and therefore I don't remember his name. 5) It is interesting that a sufficient difference is found between Fischer and regular chess, but no distinction is made between 2-minute and rapid chess. (While writing about the differences yourself) In addition, even in the regular chess "department" you can play chess with extra move time (aka Fischer chess). 6) If someone does not understand the comparison with running, there is also a possibility that the fault lies in the intellect of the non-understander.