I'm no good at thinking fast in the context of chess. Probably this is because I learned to play chess by playing against the computer as a kid without clocks, so I could spend minutes on every move.
Today I'm just over 2000 on Lichess rapid. My inability to think quickly leads me to play like either an old or a drunk man (in fact I'm usually neither). I eschew tactical battles in favor of taking the position to a drawn endgame, where I can slowly gain an incremental advantage. Closed, maneuvering positions are great for me. My strategic ability is the only thing that saves me. Fortunately, tactics tend to favor the player with better coordinated pieces.
I think you are limited by your lack of tactical strength. 2200 rapid rating in lichess should be possible for you within a few months with daily tactics training. You don't have to be a fast thinker (I would consider myself as slow thinker) to be good in tactics. It's about pattern recognition. So instead of doing a few puzzles where you think for a long time (calculation training), I would recommend you to do very easy tactics puzzles like the chesstempo easy blitz set, where you spend 30 seconds on average per puzzle. This way you can do thousands of puzzles within very short time (few weeks).
After some time you will notice that you don't have to calculate anymore for many simple tactics, you just spot them immediately after a few second, because you recognize the pattern. Now, you might still be a slow calculator, but pattern recognition is fast and you don't have to fear tactical battles as much anymore, because you can trust your brain, that'll find the simple tactics with a very high success rate.
Of course, there are also deeper tactics, e.g. a not so obvious mate in 7, but chances are high that neither you nor your opponent are able to spot them and you will only know afterwards with engine analysis. That's okay and also happens quite frequently even on GM level.
This seems like well reasoned advise, I might try it myself! In the intermediate ratings between 1500-2000 what would you say are the biggest factors affecting performance?
I think tactics are the most important aspect of the game for players in the 1500-2000 range. It doesn't matter if you have read all the best strategy books in chess and you know 15+ move deep opening lines, where you have an slight edge, when you miss a knight fork on move 20, which blunders a piece.
Also, note that the bullet pool is A LOT stronger than the rapid pool and so you will be ranked at a higher percentile (better rank) for the same rating in bullet.
And if you are 2000 in rapid your inability to do well in bullet likely has little correlation with your raw thinking speed and very likely just pattern recognition and/or lowering your standards and/or mouse speed
I'm having a hard time understanding whether the author's definitions and hypotheses make sense.
> By “fast thinking” I mean any thinking process which is advantageous in chess and which can be employed in short time intervals.
> I’d venture therefore that fast thinking is more prominent in quicker games.
Isn't this pretty much true by definition? Fast thinking is the only thing you can do in quick games, so it has to be more prominent.
But then the author continues:
> That is, if fast thinking is the dominant factor determining outcomes in games amongst normal players, it should imply that more time makes the faster thinkers advantage more prominent
And now I'm just confused. How do we know that fast thinkers aren't using "slow thinking" or anything else when they play at slower time controls? Maybe good fast thinking is correlated with good slow thinking, but this doesn't mean it is the dominant factor!
PS: I've never seen a player with a high bullet rating but a low blitz/rapid rating, so I'm not sure how to interpret a negative result either.
> And now I'm just confused. How do we know that fast thinkers aren't using "slow thinking" or anything else when they play at slower time controls? Maybe good fast thinking is correlated with good slow thinking, but this doesn't mean it is the dominant factor!
I believe that the author is just restating the NH, which is the hypothesis that slowing down time controls will make the dominant player more dominant (or at least maintain the advantage). The alternate hypothesis is stated afterwards
> AH: NHC is false. On average, given some rating difference \(x\), if \(A\) beats \(B\) at the quick time control with a probability \(p\), then \(A\) beats \(B\) at the slower time control with probability \(p' < p\).
Makes sense, but I don't think this hypothesis is helpful.
Right at the beginning of the article the author says the main goal is to:
> investigate the extent to which fast thinking is the dominant factor affecting game outcomes at any time control.
To achieve this goal, I think we'd need an hypothesis that isolates the effects of fast thinking, and not one that could confound correlated factors with the effects of fast thinking itself.
By just comparing probabilities of winning at various time controls, we're evaluating players as a whole and not isolating any aspect of their thinking, so this hypothesis doesn't seem helpful.
Perhaps if the study looked at individual moves and how much time they took to make that could help?
It’s an observational study and the author volunteers a bunch of caveats at the end of the article including with regards to construct validity which I think is the crux of your challenge.
If you think of chess as two people with different capacity CPUs calculating against each other (many people do) then time should only ever make the outcome more certain. The author basically says that if that was true, people that beat you at fast chess should be even more likely to beat you slower chess, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.
> PS: I've never seen a player with a high bullet rating but a low blitz/rapid rating, so I'm not sure how to interpret a negative result either.
I don't have a "high rating" in bullet, but it's higher than my blitz/rapid ratings.
Why ? I'm impatient. When I wait for my opponent to play their move, I lose focus. When they take 30s to 1min to think about a move that seems obvious to me, it just makes me lose my train of thought.
Because of this, I play mostly only bullet games and puzzle rush. I'm at ~2400 in tactics on lichess, and ~1900 in bullet.
> Isn't this pretty much true by definition? Fast thinking is the only thing you can do in quick games, so it has to be more prominent.
I think you might be implicitly defining "quick games" as ones where you only have time to think fast, so it comes across as a tautology to you. Meanwhile, the author writes in terms of continuums quicker and slower. I think the emphasis is on time pressure crowding out slow stuff that might make a difference. I.e. if the slower stuff made a difference, people that beat you at quick games might not beat you at slow ones ceteris paribus.
It's a fairly well known result that better chess players don't evaluate more moves, they just evaluate better ones. So the "faster thinking effect" here is something to do with the order moves are evaluated in: players who win quicker games spot the better moves quicker, but given extra time the other player gets there too.
>> that better chess players don't evaluate more moves
That's not true. A chess master calculates lines to a much deeper depth than an amateur player. They also have much better heuristics for evaluating positions, true. And they are much better at pruning irrelevant lines, as you say. But at the end of the day a master-level player is evaluating many more positions than an amateur before moving.
Exactly. Just as the fastest typists aren't thinking more quickly, they're relying on "muscle memory". Similarly, a master chess player begins her conscious thought process from good candidate moves supplied subconsciously with the speed of a touch typist.
They do both. Evaluate the better moves and also think more deeply. Chess masters have great visualization of the chess board. I as a noob am unable to think 4-5 moves ahead even if I really try hard. But pro players can visualise more than 10 moves easily.
What I discovered about chess is that it is largely pattern recognition that makes people good at chess, which is visual thinking.
The other thing about fast games is the type of game you play, if you want an early result you generally go for early sacrifices to get positional advantage and queen side castling to open up the game.
Come to think of it, fast chess is probably a different game all together
Bullet chess is also quite a different game, as the short move time opens up metagaming. Since it's so fast, you have to pre-move. Basically that's saying "if this move is valid when it's my turn, instantly play it", to save time.
But then people end up speculating on what an opponent will pre-move. Maybe you do something unexpected, so their premove doesn't work and they have to do another move and lose some. Maybe you can assume they have pre-moved something, so you can do something that's objectively a bad move, but get away with it since they can't punish you for it, having already decided on their move etc.
>What I discovered about chess is that it is largely pattern recognition that makes people good at chess, which is visual thinking.
I don't know why, but when I realized this it was a bit of a turn off for me. I still play chess, but the idea of climbing ranks became less appealing because it's simply a matter of volume of games:
You play more games, you recognize more patterns, you climb.
So now I'm content with my rank, because it's the rank I'm supposed to be with the volume of games I play.
A lot of what I've read supports the hypothesis that memory is one of the most important factors when it comes to chess mastery. Sure, there are times when calculation is important, but the majority of play seems to revolve around pattern recognition - patterns that are built up and learnt over thousands of games. This allows for fast and easy identification of the best moves in familiar positions, avoiding calculation entirely.
"From my own experience I can say that grandmasters do not do an inordinate amount of calculating. Tests (notably de Groot’s experiments) supports me in this claim. If anything, grandmasters often consider fewer alternatives; they tend not to look at as many possible moves as weaker players do. And so, perversely, chess skill often seems to reflect the ability to avoid calculations. It is, in truth, not clear that chess is a game of calculation" – Artur Yusupov
Pattern recognition is still memory, it's just the more unconcious type but you have to not only look at the patterns initially, you also have to study them. If you don't know the best counter moves or follow ups to certain patterns then you won't be able to instinctively retort to whats happening in the game.
If I get it right, the claim is that if A is better than B at fast time controls, they tend to be less dominant at slow time controls?
If this were true statistically, I think that should be reflected in the Elo spreads: Players winning more in blitz should mean they’re able to separate farther from the middle of the rating distribution.
This doesn’t seem to happen at the very top end. Looking at the Elo range of ranks 1 to 100 to get a feeling for the distribution:
Blitz: 2850 to 2610
Rapid: 2847 to 2620
Standard: 2864 to 2645
It seems if anything, the top players at slow time controls are even more dominant. Of course, top players are outliers by definition. Maybe it’s different in the middle of the rating range?
I think this is an essential part of the analysis. The author makes a point of matching pairs of players who have played each other across multiple time controls so that he is comparing the same population of people across multiple time controls. Reason this is important is because the Blitz playing population is not the same as the Rapid or Standard playing population (they are literally a different mix of people and sizes of population), so you can't compare these populations directly against each other.
I think you would be better off looking at the spread among those top 100 players, rather than between those and some ill-defined "middle". There's no reason to expect the middle of the different Elo distributions to settle in the same place.
Looking at the difference between the top-ranked player and the 100th, we get 240 points for blitz, 227 for rapid, 219 for standard. That suggests that among the elite, the best players are indeed more dominant at blitz than at longer time controls. However the effect size is small and you'd want to check for other effects causing this: eg pretty much all of the best players will be on the standard list, but some of them may not be on the blitz list as that is restricted to players who have played a rated blitz game over the board in the last two years.
This seems like a fun analysis for the author but ultimately not very useful and doesn't even really tell us much about the so called 'discounting of fast thinking'. As far as I can tell all it shows was that if a player beat someone in blitz, it doesn't make them more likely to beat them in a longer control than what ratings would predict.
They do talk of it being a proxy and confounds etc. but it just seems like there isn't much you can expect out of that test even beforehand.
I found the conclusion surprising personally. Ceteris paribus it isn't obvious that someone who beats you at Blitz wouldn't just beat you even more convincingly given more time. I actually find that a bit mysterious.
The analysis doesn't just check whether those who beat you in blitz beat you more in rapid but accounts for rating and win probabilities. A higher rated blitz player who is better than you at rapid will also have a higher rapid rating in the first place.
I don't think that is correct. The analysis explicitly matches pairs of players which have played each other in both Blitz and Rapid time control. Only the Blitz rating difference is used to estimate probability of a win under both time controls.
The significance of the interaction terms in the analysis means that the Blitz rating difference does a significantly worse job at predicting who will win at Rapid.
It’s almost a different game. Yes, thinking “fast” is good, but it’s not about finding an ideal move, it’s about finding any move that isn’t an obvious blunder as quickly as possible.
There’s also different strategies that emerge with the time limit. Running out the clock of course. When time gets low just move quickly. Also, confusing moves. Anything that makes your opponent go “Wait, what?” can give you an advantage in time.
Bullet chess is so much fun; as you say it’s a different game. Some things you can do in Bullet:
- Detect when your opponent is using premoves and use that against them (for example, if you think an opponent probably has a premove for their next turn, you can plop an unprotected bishop right next to their queen. If you guessed wrong, you lose the bishop. If you guessed right, you take their queen.)
- In an endgame with seconds left, you can make “confusing” moves that in any other game would be blunders: Say a rook-pawn endgame, if I notice my opponent has a second or two left I’ll plop my rook right next to their king. Check, the premove is invalidated, they scramble to move their king and run out of time.
So much meta-gaming potential in Bullet.
It’s also the variant where internet latency starts to matter a lot. When you’re making a move per second, or better, the difference between 100ms round trip ping and 30ms starts to add up.
I thought li had some kind of latency rubber that doesn't start the clock until the move is visible to you.. which can make a game with only two seconds on the combined clocks take significantly longer than two seconds if players are moving fast enough and the latency is getting added over and over between moves.
Edit: according to this page lichess does compensate network lag to make play fair for players on slower connections, though it doesn't specify how.
https://lichess.org/lag
Cool, hadn’t seen that. Li is open source, so it should be possible to see how it works. I wonder how exploitable that compensation might be? I.e. build a client that pretends to be on a crappy network, to give yourself an extra few ms per move?
I hate real chess. Real chess is all about playing for the draw.
Blitz and bullet chess are much more fun because precise play is impractical and conservative strategies don't work as well. You can drag a wild, tactical game out of the most timid opponent.
> I hate real chess. Real chess is all about playing for the draw.
For the vast majority of players, this simply isn't true. Even for the top players in the world, it's only sometimes true when they are playing with the black pieces, or a win doesn't do anything for their standing in the tournament.
People play to avoid losing in real chess. Gambits are countered. Lines are refuted. Unstable positions are quickly stabilized.
Aggressive play puts a chess player at a marked disadvantage. So people don't do that. They play conservatively, because that gets them the best results.
The intent may ostensibly be to win, but the observable behaviors are driven by loss aversion.
> Gambits are countered. Lines are refuted. Unstable positions are quickly stabilized.
Again, the vast majority of players are not strong enough to even know any lines, let alone refute the endless variations that may be thrown at them. Unstable positions typically end in a blunder, or a simplification down to an end game. No matter how risk averse one of the players is, the other player usually has the power to change the nature of the game pretty easily. And at non-classical time controls (rapid, blitz, bullet, etc...) the game becomes extremely interesting at all levels of play.
Magnus Carlsen famously went into a Lichess Bullet Shield online tournament very late, and clicked 100% on "berserk" mode which means his 1 minute time was cut in half to 30 seconds, and still managed to win 88% of the games and climb to #3 at the end. The first batch of games were of course very very easy for him but in the middle of the video and forward there was more of a challenge, especially at the 30 second time control it's amazing to watch. The bottleneck is probably his mouseclicks, not the brain :)
In classical chess / long time control games, thinking slowly can actually be an advantage. By that I mean a patient player who is able to effectively use the full two hours allotted to them will usually win in amateur tournaments over a "faster" player who leaves a lot of time on the clock and doesn't think as deeply on certain moves. Matching your play to the clock is an important skill for players competing in multiple different time controls.
What I find interesting is that there seem to be better players in certain game types. For example, I have played far more enjoyable and challenging games (from an intellectual/tactical perspective) in 5/3 than 10/5. Some of the tactics people fall for in 10+ minute games don't work in 5 minute games.
I am not necessarily talking about playing fast. For example, it is very rare for me to see a Fried Liver attack in 5/3 --see it all the time in 10/5. When that happens, people playing 5/3 rarely fall for a Traxler counterattack, while, again, in 10/5 they fall for it all the time and get absolutely destroyed. The distinction is such that I have completely stopped using Traxler in 5/3 games.
My rationalization is that people playing 5 minute games must play at least 3x more games and have seen more variations, which, therefore, means they've seen enough to become better players.
I don't usually play games shorter than 5 minutes. I usually play in bed just before going to sleep, so I am mentally tired. Still, I find it relaxing enough to play a few games before ending my day. Shorter games are not a good fit for a tired mind.
The other thing I sometimes do is use chess to tell me what to focus on during the day. I might play a game or two while having a cup of coffee. If I do well, it generally tells me my head is in good shape for deep focus work. If I suck, I tend to avoid work that requires deep concentration and might instead go work in the shop, do some machining/prototyping/hardware testing, etc. Didn't bother to search around and see if anyone has done any research on this phenomenon.
I realize this is a single data point. I definitely have days when I could not win a game to save my life. Not sure why. I also have days when I will win ten out of ten games. Something is different in my head in each of those instances. I think using this information to decide how to go about the rest of your day might be useful.
The game of chess is dead and no longer holds any value.
Whether its on lichess.com or some other platform like chess.com, the guarantees no longer exist for there to be any value playing the game.
Specifically there is no longer a guarantee you are actually playing against another human, and cheating is largely not punished.
The vast majority of the time, and this depends entirely on whether its a weekend or not because its typically worse then (90-100% of the games), You won't be playing a human, you will be matched up against a bot, which may or may not have a human moving the pieces.
The platforms of course say they combat cheating, but in reality their efforts are ineffective, and that communication is entirely disingenuous if not intentionally deceitful or fabricated.
As of last weekend on average, a solid 70-80% of the sampled games were people using an engine to play for them.
Background, I'm rated around 1900-2000, have studied for decades, and my opening repertoire has been designed so there is a high deviation between engine supplied moves and known theory and strategy.
In most cases by move 17 there have been enough cumulative and unique moves to have shown whether they are using an engine. Specifically, there is no strategic plan for them but they choose engine supplied moves at various depths.
There are a number of branches where if it appears they are using an engine I may induce certain lines that are not obvious but may ultimately result in a loss to evaluate their responses.
Typically heavily technical and complex positions with no strategic theme for their side but multiple possible trees and tempo to account for with a winning advantage of 0.8-1 with perfect conversion, and when they ultimately convert perfectly (usually in seconds) around move 30 its pretty damn obvious to anyone what happened.
When there is no credibility between people that they will follow the rules. There is no point in playing the game.
You can only improve when playing against another person, if you are playing against a computer, there's no point, it is just a giant lookup table that's deep enough and accurate enough to memorize all possible moves, even down lines which haven't been documented. Winning is not making mistakes, and minor mistakes are what computers with perfect iterative evaluation capitalize on.
In these current circumstances there is no point, all a game of that nature provides is the person cheating is stealing your time, psychologically abusing you (and generally being deceitful), often because they themselves have a significant mental illness.
The ease of new anonymous accounts makes the pool of potential victims...games highly likely that if you follow the rules you are volunteering to be a victim for the sake of their illness. The only solution to such an environment is not to play.
The failure of the platforms and also the two main chess organizations to address this, only make this game defunct whether they want to admit it or not publicly (due to vested interests).
There is value in teaching certain problem solving patterns to developing minds, and as soon as that's done, chess can provide no further value.
Ultimately, the Computer scientists that developed and continue to develop chess engines have killed the game by making it meaningless and their actions have damaged the livelihood of those that choose that as a profession.
Why would anyone invest the time and resources today in becoming a GM when you can play better than a GM with an engine at your side with no prior experience.
Why would anyone buy products for chess that teach you how to play better to win (the right way) when an engine can win for do it for you and the majority of your opponents are just engines.
Lichess and Chess.com both like to say they do a lot to remove cheaters, and that's only a small part of the problem.
It comes down to time to detection, and time to re-entry.
If the first is large, and the second is small, water will fill the boat faster ...
47 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 95.8 ms ] threadToday I'm just over 2000 on Lichess rapid. My inability to think quickly leads me to play like either an old or a drunk man (in fact I'm usually neither). I eschew tactical battles in favor of taking the position to a drawn endgame, where I can slowly gain an incremental advantage. Closed, maneuvering positions are great for me. My strategic ability is the only thing that saves me. Fortunately, tactics tend to favor the player with better coordinated pieces.
After some time you will notice that you don't have to calculate anymore for many simple tactics, you just spot them immediately after a few second, because you recognize the pattern. Now, you might still be a slow calculator, but pattern recognition is fast and you don't have to fear tactical battles as much anymore, because you can trust your brain, that'll find the simple tactics with a very high success rate.
Of course, there are also deeper tactics, e.g. a not so obvious mate in 7, but chances are high that neither you nor your opponent are able to spot them and you will only know afterwards with engine analysis. That's okay and also happens quite frequently even on GM level.
It tickles me to think that you're sometimes randomly old.
And if you are 2000 in rapid your inability to do well in bullet likely has little correlation with your raw thinking speed and very likely just pattern recognition and/or lowering your standards and/or mouse speed
> By “fast thinking” I mean any thinking process which is advantageous in chess and which can be employed in short time intervals.
> I’d venture therefore that fast thinking is more prominent in quicker games.
Isn't this pretty much true by definition? Fast thinking is the only thing you can do in quick games, so it has to be more prominent.
But then the author continues:
> That is, if fast thinking is the dominant factor determining outcomes in games amongst normal players, it should imply that more time makes the faster thinkers advantage more prominent
And now I'm just confused. How do we know that fast thinkers aren't using "slow thinking" or anything else when they play at slower time controls? Maybe good fast thinking is correlated with good slow thinking, but this doesn't mean it is the dominant factor!
PS: I've never seen a player with a high bullet rating but a low blitz/rapid rating, so I'm not sure how to interpret a negative result either.
I believe that the author is just restating the NH, which is the hypothesis that slowing down time controls will make the dominant player more dominant (or at least maintain the advantage). The alternate hypothesis is stated afterwards
> AH: NHC is false. On average, given some rating difference \(x\), if \(A\) beats \(B\) at the quick time control with a probability \(p\), then \(A\) beats \(B\) at the slower time control with probability \(p' < p\).
Right at the beginning of the article the author says the main goal is to:
> investigate the extent to which fast thinking is the dominant factor affecting game outcomes at any time control.
To achieve this goal, I think we'd need an hypothesis that isolates the effects of fast thinking, and not one that could confound correlated factors with the effects of fast thinking itself.
By just comparing probabilities of winning at various time controls, we're evaluating players as a whole and not isolating any aspect of their thinking, so this hypothesis doesn't seem helpful.
Perhaps if the study looked at individual moves and how much time they took to make that could help?
If you think of chess as two people with different capacity CPUs calculating against each other (many people do) then time should only ever make the outcome more certain. The author basically says that if that was true, people that beat you at fast chess should be even more likely to beat you slower chess, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.
I don't have a "high rating" in bullet, but it's higher than my blitz/rapid ratings.
Why ? I'm impatient. When I wait for my opponent to play their move, I lose focus. When they take 30s to 1min to think about a move that seems obvious to me, it just makes me lose my train of thought.
Because of this, I play mostly only bullet games and puzzle rush. I'm at ~2400 in tactics on lichess, and ~1900 in bullet.
I think you might be implicitly defining "quick games" as ones where you only have time to think fast, so it comes across as a tautology to you. Meanwhile, the author writes in terms of continuums quicker and slower. I think the emphasis is on time pressure crowding out slow stuff that might make a difference. I.e. if the slower stuff made a difference, people that beat you at quick games might not beat you at slow ones ceteris paribus.
That's not true. A chess master calculates lines to a much deeper depth than an amateur player. They also have much better heuristics for evaluating positions, true. And they are much better at pruning irrelevant lines, as you say. But at the end of the day a master-level player is evaluating many more positions than an amateur before moving.
What I discovered about chess is that it is largely pattern recognition that makes people good at chess, which is visual thinking.
The other thing about fast games is the type of game you play, if you want an early result you generally go for early sacrifices to get positional advantage and queen side castling to open up the game.
Come to think of it, fast chess is probably a different game all together
But then people end up speculating on what an opponent will pre-move. Maybe you do something unexpected, so their premove doesn't work and they have to do another move and lose some. Maybe you can assume they have pre-moved something, so you can do something that's objectively a bad move, but get away with it since they can't punish you for it, having already decided on their move etc.
Quite a different game, but fun to watch.
I should play bullet a bit more often, really is fun.
I don't know why, but when I realized this it was a bit of a turn off for me. I still play chess, but the idea of climbing ranks became less appealing because it's simply a matter of volume of games:
You play more games, you recognize more patterns, you climb.
So now I'm content with my rank, because it's the rank I'm supposed to be with the volume of games I play.
"From my own experience I can say that grandmasters do not do an inordinate amount of calculating. Tests (notably de Groot’s experiments) supports me in this claim. If anything, grandmasters often consider fewer alternatives; they tend not to look at as many possible moves as weaker players do. And so, perversely, chess skill often seems to reflect the ability to avoid calculations. It is, in truth, not clear that chess is a game of calculation" – Artur Yusupov
If this were true statistically, I think that should be reflected in the Elo spreads: Players winning more in blitz should mean they’re able to separate farther from the middle of the rating distribution.
This doesn’t seem to happen at the very top end. Looking at the Elo range of ranks 1 to 100 to get a feeling for the distribution:
It seems if anything, the top players at slow time controls are even more dominant. Of course, top players are outliers by definition. Maybe it’s different in the middle of the rating range?(Source: https://ratings.fide.com/top_lists.phtml)
Looking at the difference between the top-ranked player and the 100th, we get 240 points for blitz, 227 for rapid, 219 for standard. That suggests that among the elite, the best players are indeed more dominant at blitz than at longer time controls. However the effect size is small and you'd want to check for other effects causing this: eg pretty much all of the best players will be on the standard list, but some of them may not be on the blitz list as that is restricted to players who have played a rated blitz game over the board in the last two years.
They do talk of it being a proxy and confounds etc. but it just seems like there isn't much you can expect out of that test even beforehand.
The significance of the interaction terms in the analysis means that the Blitz rating difference does a significantly worse job at predicting who will win at Rapid.
It’s almost a different game. Yes, thinking “fast” is good, but it’s not about finding an ideal move, it’s about finding any move that isn’t an obvious blunder as quickly as possible.
There’s also different strategies that emerge with the time limit. Running out the clock of course. When time gets low just move quickly. Also, confusing moves. Anything that makes your opponent go “Wait, what?” can give you an advantage in time.
I’d argue that faster speed relies more on pattern recognition and intuition, versus strategy.
- Detect when your opponent is using premoves and use that against them (for example, if you think an opponent probably has a premove for their next turn, you can plop an unprotected bishop right next to their queen. If you guessed wrong, you lose the bishop. If you guessed right, you take their queen.)
- In an endgame with seconds left, you can make “confusing” moves that in any other game would be blunders: Say a rook-pawn endgame, if I notice my opponent has a second or two left I’ll plop my rook right next to their king. Check, the premove is invalidated, they scramble to move their king and run out of time.
So much meta-gaming potential in Bullet.
It’s also the variant where internet latency starts to matter a lot. When you’re making a move per second, or better, the difference between 100ms round trip ping and 30ms starts to add up.
Edit: according to this page lichess does compensate network lag to make play fair for players on slower connections, though it doesn't specify how. https://lichess.org/lag
Blitz and bullet chess are much more fun because precise play is impractical and conservative strategies don't work as well. You can drag a wild, tactical game out of the most timid opponent.
For the vast majority of players, this simply isn't true. Even for the top players in the world, it's only sometimes true when they are playing with the black pieces, or a win doesn't do anything for their standing in the tournament.
Aggressive play puts a chess player at a marked disadvantage. So people don't do that. They play conservatively, because that gets them the best results.
The intent may ostensibly be to win, but the observable behaviors are driven by loss aversion.
Again, the vast majority of players are not strong enough to even know any lines, let alone refute the endless variations that may be thrown at them. Unstable positions typically end in a blunder, or a simplification down to an end game. No matter how risk averse one of the players is, the other player usually has the power to change the nature of the game pretty easily. And at non-classical time controls (rapid, blitz, bullet, etc...) the game becomes extremely interesting at all levels of play.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTEj4moaay0
I am not necessarily talking about playing fast. For example, it is very rare for me to see a Fried Liver attack in 5/3 --see it all the time in 10/5. When that happens, people playing 5/3 rarely fall for a Traxler counterattack, while, again, in 10/5 they fall for it all the time and get absolutely destroyed. The distinction is such that I have completely stopped using Traxler in 5/3 games.
My rationalization is that people playing 5 minute games must play at least 3x more games and have seen more variations, which, therefore, means they've seen enough to become better players.
I don't usually play games shorter than 5 minutes. I usually play in bed just before going to sleep, so I am mentally tired. Still, I find it relaxing enough to play a few games before ending my day. Shorter games are not a good fit for a tired mind.
The other thing I sometimes do is use chess to tell me what to focus on during the day. I might play a game or two while having a cup of coffee. If I do well, it generally tells me my head is in good shape for deep focus work. If I suck, I tend to avoid work that requires deep concentration and might instead go work in the shop, do some machining/prototyping/hardware testing, etc. Didn't bother to search around and see if anyone has done any research on this phenomenon.
I realize this is a single data point. I definitely have days when I could not win a game to save my life. Not sure why. I also have days when I will win ten out of ten games. Something is different in my head in each of those instances. I think using this information to decide how to go about the rest of your day might be useful.
Whether its on lichess.com or some other platform like chess.com, the guarantees no longer exist for there to be any value playing the game.
Specifically there is no longer a guarantee you are actually playing against another human, and cheating is largely not punished.
The vast majority of the time, and this depends entirely on whether its a weekend or not because its typically worse then (90-100% of the games), You won't be playing a human, you will be matched up against a bot, which may or may not have a human moving the pieces.
The platforms of course say they combat cheating, but in reality their efforts are ineffective, and that communication is entirely disingenuous if not intentionally deceitful or fabricated.
As of last weekend on average, a solid 70-80% of the sampled games were people using an engine to play for them.
Background, I'm rated around 1900-2000, have studied for decades, and my opening repertoire has been designed so there is a high deviation between engine supplied moves and known theory and strategy.
In most cases by move 17 there have been enough cumulative and unique moves to have shown whether they are using an engine. Specifically, there is no strategic plan for them but they choose engine supplied moves at various depths.
There are a number of branches where if it appears they are using an engine I may induce certain lines that are not obvious but may ultimately result in a loss to evaluate their responses.
Typically heavily technical and complex positions with no strategic theme for their side but multiple possible trees and tempo to account for with a winning advantage of 0.8-1 with perfect conversion, and when they ultimately convert perfectly (usually in seconds) around move 30 its pretty damn obvious to anyone what happened.
When there is no credibility between people that they will follow the rules. There is no point in playing the game.
You can only improve when playing against another person, if you are playing against a computer, there's no point, it is just a giant lookup table that's deep enough and accurate enough to memorize all possible moves, even down lines which haven't been documented. Winning is not making mistakes, and minor mistakes are what computers with perfect iterative evaluation capitalize on.
In these current circumstances there is no point, all a game of that nature provides is the person cheating is stealing your time, psychologically abusing you (and generally being deceitful), often because they themselves have a significant mental illness.
The ease of new anonymous accounts makes the pool of potential victims...games highly likely that if you follow the rules you are volunteering to be a victim for the sake of their illness. The only solution to such an environment is not to play.
The failure of the platforms and also the two main chess organizations to address this, only make this game defunct whether they want to admit it or not publicly (due to vested interests).
There is value in teaching certain problem solving patterns to developing minds, and as soon as that's done, chess can provide no further value.
Ultimately, the Computer scientists that developed and continue to develop chess engines have killed the game by making it meaningless and their actions have damaged the livelihood of those that choose that as a profession.
Why would anyone invest the time and resources today in becoming a GM when you can play better than a GM with an engine at your side with no prior experience.
Why would anyone buy products for chess that teach you how to play better to win (the right way) when an engine can win for do it for you and the majority of your opponents are just engines.
Lichess and Chess.com both like to say they do a lot to remove cheaters, and that's only a small part of the problem.
It comes down to time to detection, and time to re-entry.
If the first is large, and the second is small, water will fill the boat faster ...