Talk:Fast chess

spelling[edit]

Is it really "blitzkreig"? Shouldn't it be "blitzkrieg"? (which is a german word; krEIg doesn't exist, but krIEg does.) -- —PrecDeding unsigned comment added by 217.226.7.251 (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. I changed it. Quale 18:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

removed[edit]

I removed the following sentence

If both players' time runs out at the same time, then the game is a draw.

because my understanding is that as timed by a chess clock this is impossible. If someone knows this can happen (perhaps using timing other than a chess clock) then please restore it with an explanation of the conditions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RJFJR (talk • contribs) 05:45, 30 January 2005

Compare the following from the rules given in the link:

11. When a player notices that his opponent's clock has fallen, he should stop both clocks and notify his opponent. If, in this process, his own flag falls, the game shall be declared drawn, unless both parties agree as to which flag fell first.

Hence it seems to be possible to have exactly that situation. \Mikez 16:58, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that exact situation is possible, as in your example one clock did fall before the other. F e tofs ^Hello! 21:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, they don't fall at the same time, but a player may notice that they have both fallen or pretend not to notice that his own clock has fallen, waiting for his opponent's clock to fall so that the game could be declared a draw. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 22:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a game where the time is limited (sudden death), the rule is that if it is found that both clocks have run out of time, it is a draw. In a game with another time control period, the game continues. Bubba73 (talk), 02:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With mechanical clocks, when you press the button, especially with force both flags can and do occasionally fall together. SunCreator (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanups[edit]

In addition to adding {{cite book}} and {{cite web}} templates to replace the references and external links, I added some wikilinks and did some other cosmetic cleanups, like linking time control to the first use of the term as per WP:MOS ... since the article has been renamed to Fast chess, I moved that to the first term (also per MOS) and replaced most of the references to "blitz chess" with that term, even though most of the articles that link here use it through a redirect.

Because there are no official definitions of the various names, in order to avoid confusing the reader, I deleted the numerous "AKA" references and tried to make the language more generic ... Happy Editing! —68.239.79.82 (talk · contribs) 10:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additions[edit]

I Added:

The play will be governed by the FIDE Laws of Chess, except when they are overridden by the specific tournament. However, in case of a dispute during a tournament, either player may stop the clock and call the arbiter to make a final and binding judgment.

Rationale:

It is essential to mention that, as with the normal chess, the fast chess too has tournaments where FIDE Laws of Chess will be applied. Under any dispute, the Arbiter has to be called in order to settle the dispute. Hence I added the information about FIDE Laws of Chess and the role of an Arbiter, tagging to its Wiki pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charanya kannan (talk • contribs) 20:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Differences in play from normal chess.[edit]

I'm not familiar with the chess literature to know if there are sources for this, but the article could use something about the different style of play that results from have time pressure right from the start of the game. Blitz chess lends itself to clock-based tactics that don't work in a normal game. For example an unexpected sacrifice and an unusual attack that might not be sustainable but will force your opponent to defend long enough to run out of time. Or an unusual opening that allows you to build an early time advantage since your opponent must take extra time to think about an unfamiliar position. Und so weiter.

But this is just from my own experience so it wouldn't be appropriate to add... are there sources that discuss this? Dlabtot (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split fast chess?[edit]

I think that the fast chess article may need to be split - making a separate article for the championship tournaments. The problem is that there is very little info about the championships. What do you think? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm not so much in favor of the split. Correspondence chess and Chess960 are similar articles and they don't have separate articles about the championship. There really isn't enough about the fast chess championships to merit an article. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rule[edit]

im pretty sure in fast chess you dont have to call out check but you can simply just take the king is this true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcat58 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As with all chess, you do not have to announce check. The rest of your question is answered in the paragraph that starts: "The play will be governed...". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kasparov, 1987[edit]

Is the claim that Kasparov won a World Blitz Chess Championship in 1987 true? Not only is it unreferenced, but most reliable sources that I have found regarding this event do not describe it as a World Championship of any kind; they just call it "Brussels blitz" (see [1], [2], [3] and [4]). This source, on the other hand, does. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this is the edit that added Kasparov to the list. It includes a reference that, however, has the following statement: "The first World Blitz Champion according to wikipedia was Garry Kasparov who won the Brussels blitz in 1987." ([5]). The source was removed with this edit. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem be be a world championship. -Koppapa (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 1st World Blitz Championship was won by Mikhail Tal in 1988.[29] contradicts this from Tal's page: "In 1988, at the age of 51, he won the second official World Blitz Championship (the first was won by Kasparov the previous year in Brussels) at Saint John, ahead of such players as Kasparov, the reigning world champion, and ex-champion Anatoly Karpov." Any chance Wikipedia could stop contradicting itself? After a fucking decade? 2601:989:4300:20B0:C4C9:22E9:6C28:6B86 (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The blitz world championship of 1987 was not FIDE sponsored, and therefore not official. But it was a world championship, so you could argue that the 1987 event was the first one. But the first FIDE sponsored event occurred in 1988, making the 1988 the first official event. This article is mainly based on official FIDE-sponsored events. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Championships[edit]

Section 3 Championships says nothing about any but 3.1 Unofficial championships. The section headings may imply to some readers that 3.2 and 3.3 cover official world championships; even that is not stated.

Earlier we say, "In 1988 Walter Browne formed the World Blitz Chess Association and its magazine Blitz Chess, which folded in 2003." So the magazine folded. Does the organization persist and sanction the World Blitz Championships covered in section 3.2?

Is there a regular cycle of championships? For instance, the tables 3.2 and 3.3 suggests to me annual open events that were cancelled in 2011.

--P64 (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fast chess. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://worldblitz2008.kz/about/championship_history

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fast chess. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recording moves[edit]

In the extremely fast forms of chess, it would seem that the players would hardly have time to record their moves, which in a tournament would be essential. How this is done would be a useful addition to the article. Dynzmoar (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 2018-01-01 rules from FIDE says that the players do not have to do that. Added to article. --Artoria 2e5 🌉 22:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism edits[edit]

Some elaboration on why I removed the Criticism section. It's built out of a series of quotes listed off in pure list format, with overall haphazard writing (but writing style can always be fixed). However, it does more to misrepresent the perception of titled players than explain the actual reasons some people criticize fast chess.

Hikaru Nakamura was cited in the main article as stating, "[Blitz] is just getting positions where you can move fast. I mean, it's not chess." from a YouTube video uploaded by Chess.com. This is excerpted from a long-winded description of his perspective on his performance in the Paris Grand Chess Tour in an interview with him, where he does not decry blitz chess itself, but instead describes that the key to blitz chess is getting flexible positions that are easy to make moves in, not raw chess skill. Nakamura is famously verbose in his speech, and distilled summaries of his voice such as this misrepresent him.

The article also cited Magnus Carlsen as stating, "Rapid and blitz chess is first of all for enjoyment." It referred to this article (archive) which makes a slightly differently phrased claim in its text:
According to the interview, Carlsen wasn't happy with the results, this time "although rapid and blitz chess is first of all for enojying" he is seriously preparing and hopes to take revenge.
This itself is attributed to a Verdens Gang interview with Carlsen in Norwegian that, as best I can tell, does not share this quote. I am not sure where the article got it from.

At least four quotes (those of Kramnik, Botvinnik, Nezhmetdinov and Fischer) are collected wholesale from the now-defunct site ChessQuotes.com (archive), and have insufficient context to be suited for encyclopedic use. As far as I can tell, the quotes do legitimately belong to the attributed authors, though.

The latter Kramnik quote is misleading. It cites this Chess in Translation article where Kramnik explains, "But above all for me blitz is just a great pleasure, especially when you play the strongest chess players in the world. It’s a very interesting game." He mentions that blitz is a "pleasure" not to denounce it for being worth no more than entertainment, but to laud it for being enjoyable. The former quote, noting his stance on bullet chess, however, is sound.

Short's comment on blitz chess and alcoholism is neither laudatory nor critical, but rather a self-deprecative joke. Later in the same article (archive) he mentions, "I think that blitz chess is seriously underdeveloped as a tool for promoting chess." His overall opinion of blitz is positive.

In the interview with Dubov, his perspectives are again misinterpreted. While as per the interview, he is opposed to a fast time control, rapid, he seems to enjoy blitz as a more lighthearted, less serious form of chess. His main concern with rapid is that it stands halfway between blitz and classical, and it is ambiguous in seriousness.

With all of this in mind, I really think the best course of action for now is to remove the section. While there are absolutely valid criticisms of fast chess (as a chess player myself, I tend to object to certain faster time controls) I don't believe the article as it stood succeeded in encapsulating those criticisms. Instead, it only served to mislead people and give the impression that top players such as Nakamura and Carlsen objected to a chess time control they play on a daily basis and build a career out of.

Perhaps, if the section is to be recreated, it should focus on the perspectives of non-titled players ("Many players object to bullet chess because they believe it leaves no time to think") and cite forums and articles rather than famous quotes and interviews. If the section is to be recreated, it should definitely paraphrase its sources rather than quoting them directly, because the quotes as they stood in the main article did it an overall disservice. Eunakria (talk) 10:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]