English Chess Forum

I've noticed on chess.com that blitz games are annotated as are bullet games, when you look through them afterwards that is. Shouldn't some sort of sliding scale be introduced for faster time limits? I was accused of committing a blunder by missing mate in 2 and choosing mate in 4 instead but given how little time I had on the clock, it's hardly fair to judge it at all I'd say. Can anything actually be gained from annotating games with such reduced time controls? I thought mistakes were part and parcel of it.

MJMcCready wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 27, 2021 10:11 pm

I've noticed on chess.com that blitz games are annotated as are bullet games, when you look through them afterwards that is. Shouldn't some sort of sliding scale be introduced for faster time limits? I was accused of committing a blunder by missing mate in 2 and choosing mate in 4 instead but given how little time I had on the clock, it's hardly fair to judge it at all I'd say. Can anything actually be gained from annotating games with such reduced time controls? I thought mistakes were part and parcel of it.

Really? By whom?

Stockfish.

Is there any particular reason to be concerned that Stockfish has a low opinion of your play at blitz

One thing I vaguely wonder is whether, if one clicks game analysis on lichess, it uses different thresholds at all for analysing bullet vs blitz vs rapid (i.e. how long it lets stockfish think about each move before deciding how good it was). I imagine not, but would be curious to know either way.

Stockfish is a machine only doing what it is told to do (I do not frequent chess.com, can you not just turn the analysis off.)

Originally thought the thread was about analysis by humans with notes and criticism regarding online blitz games,
something I have always deemed pointless stretching to the ridiculous. Good fun to play and watch but never taken seriously.

Online blitz/rapid also has the extra blunder feature of a mouse slip which would not happen OTB.
Yes you put pieces en prise in blitz but the error is meant. You hung a piece by putting it where wanted you it to go.

Carlsen - Vachier-Lagrave Opera Euro Rapid (2021)

2rr2k1/1p3pb1/4p1pp/p1P1P3/Pn1NqP2/1P2B2P/6P1/2RQ1RK1 w - - 0 24

Carlsen meant to play 24.Qd2 but the Queen slipped to d3 and 0-1 before Black replied.
(I wonder what Stockfish made of that one.)

How many mouse slips have gone unnoticed as such because there were not so drastic and classed as blunders.
I know I've had more than a few, once one actually turned out to be a good unintentional move, as I was cursing
my clumsy mouse I realised my opponent was taking longer and longer to move. OOPS!...good move!

But is it correct to say he blundered during a blitz game. I mean according to the position it is, I mean objectively speaking but then everyone does during blitz, and no one really expects not to. We can, I think, say we blunder but I don't think it means anything given that context. Saying 'oh he blundered in bullet chess' is just laughable to me. Who wouldn't?

I'm not bothered by annotations, but it does annoy me that when you put an opening position into a database, what you mostly get nowadays is meaningless blitz and internet games.

Agreed. I don't wish to sound old but the youngest generation of all don't seem to have any grounding in theory and play purely for fun. Perhaps I did in my teens too. Hard to see chess these days as being something not theory-laden. Yet most people on-line have no real positional play to their game.