I think it depends first at what time do you need more time to think and play a well versed game. Then try a faster time limit. The pros can play 3 minute chess with 90% accuracy.
With that being said I think for me I play 5-10minute games for testing out a new opening. You can get a good idea of what you need to study and what you will face the most.
I play rapid 10/5 and 15-10 better. I prefer to not do games longer than 30 minute time controls.
@swarminglocusts said in #11:
> I prefer to not do games longer than 30 minute time controls.
Out of pure curiosity: why? Is it lack of (contiguous) free time, knowing from experience that you wouldn't use more time anyway or something else?
@swarminglocusts said in #11:
>I prefer to not do games longer than 30 minute time controls.
@mkubecek said in #12:
> Out of pure curiosity: why?
Same here, 30 minute games can span a full hour, more than my current ability to really stay focused. I improve the most at rapid (10, 15) because I can play more games, still have time to think and anyway I'm not good enough to get the most of slower controls.
I guess achieving longer thinking time is something that needs training, but I prefer to work on it through puzzles.
I'm surprised no-one has mentioned correspondance. It's improved my game enormously because you effectively have as much time as you want when the position gets complicated. I tend to play about 30 games at once - in straightforward positions I'll move almost instantly once the game is on my screen, in complex positions I can take my time.
I'm much less good at bullet - possibly something to do with being 52 years old! - but it's been a useful skill to learn because if I'm at the end of a rapid 10 0 game I can blitz out premoves if needed to avoid losing on time.
Yes correspondence games are useful too to have a high quality game
but classical is more effective as correspondence do interuptions in your mind because it lasts many days. Classical makes you think during one time and your reflexion won't be interupted
@mkubecek said in #12:
> Out of pure curiosity: why? Is it lack of (contiguous) free time, knowing from experience that you wouldn't use more time anyway or something else?
I like to not play tournaments and 1. Not have a headache afterwards and 2. Not waste my weekend ;-D
I believe that it's necessary to play all the time controls (except ultra bullet). All of them help in someway or the other. I personally played more blitz and less rapid and almost no classical for the most part of my chess journey. I did play OTB with my seniors and coaches who helped me to identify my mistakes and improve my overall play. I think this was one of the most important thing responsible for my improvement. Other than that I just kept doing some books and playing blitz and analysing it.
Premise: 15'10" is the time control I practice the most. 20'20" is the one I like the most. However, I can't say which of the two will help me better to improve.
For some time now I've been playing a lot of 5'4'' games to experiment, try to fix ideas on schemes, openings, possible plans... This cadence doesn't make me improve in terms of play; but it has also been useful to me, in the sense that it has speeded up my decision-making time, and I've noticed that this reflects positively when I'm short on time.
However, this also has a downside : since I've started playing these blitz games frequently, I tend to move quickly even when I play rapid or classic, and this makes me make a few too many mistakes. It's an exaggeration to say that "it hurts my chess skills", but actually this fast game risks making me unaccustomed to the careful reflection I put into it before. ( It's clear that blitz is not my thing, but I've always known that ).
We just can't underestimate the world championship time control. Could be the best clock for becoming a better player.
There are a lot of good ideas here, but I do want to highlight
lichess.org/@/russell2601's comment (#14). I've been playing correspondence almost exclusively for about two years -- but limit my games to 10 or less (usually much less!) so that I have plenty of time for each game, and play only 2-day or 3-day games (1-day has caused me to forfeit games when I've been ill). Mixing this with classical is probably best for improving steadily, and adding some rapid and blitz is not bad either.
Bullet can be counterproductive since you could easily develop 'move-first-maybe-think-later' habits which may creep into all your games. (It's easier to slide into laziness than into disciplined thinking, of course!)
