Sweden is now a regulated market, which means that as a player you can only play at casinos with a license. See all regulated casinos in Sweden by Mr casinova.
The timeless question ... Does Blitz Chess do more harm than good for your serious chess game? This question has puzzled chess players since the beginning of the game itself. Im not surprised that in the short 5 months I've been running my website the topic has been already been brought up 3 times. Our contributing editor Martin wrote a popular article for our site entitled: Blitz Chess The Pros and Cons where he concluded that playing blitz chess in moderation is ok. Contributing editor Daniel Naroditsky also mentioned his opinion on the subject in his introduction to his live blitz chess video Their consensus is that in moderation, chess blitz is OK. My opinion is a little bit different. While I love blitz chess far more than either Martin or Daniel, I'm here to admit it isn't good for you at all. This article is the confession of a true blitzaholic.
Blitz in moderation: a correct conclusion or nothing more than the fallacy of the middle ground?
But wait? If you're trying to become a good chess player we clearly know that too much blitz chess is bad for your game, but that doesnt automatically mean that a little bit is good, or at least not harmful for your game. Wikipedia refers to the fallacy of the middle ground as a logical fallacy which asserts that any given compromise between two positions must be correct. E.G. If too much chess blitz is bad, and no chess blitz is bad, then a little bit of chess blitz must be good! As an avid blitz players it hurts me to say this but playing chess blitz in any amount is almost never beneficial for improving your low time-control chess game . It hurts me to admit this because I am, in fact, a Blitz-aholic.
But chess blitz is so much fun!
Blitz is definitely entertaining to play, and very fun to watch. It also allows players the opportunity to try out new ideas in a short period of time in an inconsequential game. Also, blitz can increase your tactical awareness and obviously facilitate faster play. Personally, I enjoy blitz because I can wildly sacrifice pieces and my opponent has less time to clarify the mess and refute objectively unsound attacks. Any of my friends know that I love playing blitz chess. Most young high rated players that got sucked into the chess world starting playing chess blitz online (the classic example being Nakamura). However, the popular opinion of nearly all high-level chess players that blitz is NOT good for your game and I reluctantly join them.
Compartmentalize your Blitz Skills and Regular Time-Control Skills Seperately
To succeed in chess you need two mind sets: your Blitz mind and your Regular Time-Control mindset. I am struggling with this myself. Chess Blitz can seem the same as regular time control chess on a superficial level, theres a clock, theres the same rules, the same pieces, the same player on the other end of the table, but the mindset must separate how much time is given to you on that clock regardless of the similarities. They seem the same, but they are 2 separate languages. This is tough, but it must be learned.
My Final Thoughts on Blitz
Your ability to concentrate on a single game diminishes as playing habits are built around blitz games. For many of the same reasons that blitz is so fun playing out many games in a short period, quick positional and tactical assessments, and unsound sacrificial attacks blitz can be very harmful to your serious, slow chess game. Im not recommending that people stop playing blitz, I'm simply saying that if you want to progress as a serious chess player maybe you should reconsider the time you dedicate to playing meaningless blitz games and the time that you spend legitimately studying and deeply learning the game. And yes, this is coming from a blitzaholic.
Candidate master Peter Zhdanov's column at Pogonina.com
I tried quitting chess a couple of times, but it is harder than it sounds. After all, I love the game. Especially attractive to me is the analytical aspect - evaluating the position and finding the optimal move. A park player's joy of setting up a clever trap or swindling is not what appeals to me. Meanwhile, it is sad to realize that modern technologies leave us less and less space for creativity. I remember the times when PCs were no match for top humans. Now we are not even in contention. Correspondence chess is still alive though, as a smart operator using a chess engine is stronger than the engine itself. However, taking into account the trend, quite soon there would be no need in humans at all, and a win in correspondence chess will be achieved by the player who has the better PC.
What do I hate in chess? A very low ROI. You invest a lot and get virtually nothing in return. Natalia is often contacted by naive adults who ask something like: "I have recently learnt how to play chess and like your website and career a lot. Maybe I will also become a professional chess player. How do I make the first step?". What they miss out is that after like 10 years of toils they will hardly make it above a regular master. The tragedy is that there are many people in the world who are not able to set their priorities straight. As a result, they have no family, no job, don't go to college, lack serious hobbies, but keep playing chess day after day. I am not referring to people who have chosen a career in chess since being kids and became grandmasters before 20 y.o. The story is about "hostages of the game" - grown-up people who got stuck between amateur and professional level (2300-2500 for men, 2100-2300 for women). Alas, most of them have spent tonnes of time to achieve basically nothing. No real social respect and privileges, no money, no fame. Returning to my personal example: if I want to become an FM/IM, I will have to compete on par with the guys mentioned above. Ok, someone who is WAY more talented will be able to do it without wrecking his/her life entirely. However, if you are only somewhat more gifted, you will have to spare 2 or 3 hours daily for each 5 hours spent by them on chess. And what for?
Therefore, there are two reasonable ways - a) very risky - aim for becoming a chess pro since very early age b) treat chess as an exciting game, a hobby. The in-between scenario is by far not the golden middle, as it creates huge risks of ending up being a nobody both in chess and in life.
Nakamura - Ponomariov & Robson - Finegold in St. Louis
Written by Administrator
Friday, 27 May 2011
St. Louis International Matches - GM Nakamura vs. GM Ponomariov
This year's 2011 St. Louis International Match features the world's #8 player Hikaru Nakamura (USA, 2774) versus the world's #11 Ruslan Ponomariov(UKR, 2754), as well as 16 year-old GM Ray Robson (USA, 2522) Vs GM Ben Finegold (USA 2494). Its an interesting exhibition match system, with a total of 10 games (6 classical time control, followed by 4 rapid time control games). As the classical portion of the match ended on May 22nd, Nakamura leads Ponomariov 3.5-2.5 and Robson leads 4-2 against Finegold. This article is an abbreviated version of the Will's article. Please visit Will's site for the full version of Will's article on the 2011 St. Louis Matches - Nakamura vs Ponomariov which includes full PGNs and extra content.
GM Nakamura vs. GM Ponomariov, 2 of the best blitz players in the world
I have especially enjoyed the heavyweight match, as Nakamura looks to build world-class experience against Ponomariov, who won the FIDE World Chess Championship in 2002 in a knockout match format. Ponomariov displayed excellent endgame technique to take down game #1. However, Nakamura made a fine opening adjustment to even the score in game 3 in a complicated Kings Indian Defense. The St. Louis resident went on to achieve a very fine positional victory against Ponomariovs slightly inaccurate defense in Game 6, taking the lead going into the rapid portion of the match. While Ponomariov is a tough rapid/blitz chess he's still no match for Nakamura who is one of the best blitz players in chess history. My prediction for the final score of the ten game match is Nakamura - 6.5 to Ponomariov - 3.5.
Chess Video - GM Ruslan Ponomariov vs. GM Hikaru Nakamura - Game #3
Game Description: 2011 St. Louis International Match: Game 3 GM Hikaru Nakamura (USA, 2774) vs GM Ruslan Ponomariov (UKR, 2754) Ponomariov opens with d4 and is answered by Nakamuras Kings Indian Defense. In game 1, Nakamura lost by playing a line that involved 7. Nc6 and a long-term kingside attack with a later f5 and f4. However, in this game he went a different direction with 7. Na6 looking for more play in the center as opposed to kingside expansion. Ponomariov played an interesting pawn sacrifice with 12. c5, however I believe it is objectively unsound as black is able to consolidate his position with an extra pawn and the 2 bishops. Nakamura showed some fantastic endgame technique, as he transformed his advantage of a pawn to winning an exchange, then sacrificing the exchange back to obtain a favorable Q+P endgame which he went on to convert in convincing fashion.
Chess Video - GM Hikaru Nakamura vs. GM Ruslan Ponomariov - Game #6
Game Description: 2011 St. Louis International Match: GM Hikaru Nakamura (USA, 2774) vs GM Ruslan Ponomariov (UKR, 2754) Nakamura opens with the Queens Gambit as white, and deviates early from their game 4 line by playing 6. Qc2 instead of 6. e3. Ponomariov initiates an early queen trade with 8. Qg6, which leads to a slight worsening of his position due to the cost of time and therefore space. Nakamura engages in subtle positional maneuvering which slowly builds a pressing advantage, as Ponomariov fails to sense the growing danger and continues making natural consolidating moves. 21. Rac1! marks the turning point in the game, as blacks pieces are simply too tied up to defend against whites creeping attack. An excellent positional victory by Nakamura, not permitting the slightest counter-play by his former world champion opponent.
Gelfand is the Winner of the Candidates Matches-2011
Written by Peter Zhdanov
Wednesday, 25 May 2011
Boris Gelfand won the decisive 6th game against Alexander Grischuk with White & will face the reigning World Chess Champion Viswanathan Anand next year. "It was Vishy's dream to be the youngest of the players in the WC match" (C) Boris Gelfand during the press conference.
The Candidates Matches-2011 were accompanied by non-ending criticism of lack of fighting spirit caused by a large number of draws. The general public fails to realize that chess engines and databases have brought the game to a level where top players often memorize lines longer than 20 moves and know very well the plans in the position that occur afterwards. As a result, it is natural for most top-level chess games to end in a draw, but the spectators still tend to consider draws "boring" and wish the good old Fischer 6-0 times were back. No matter how absurd and/or unrealistic such dreams may be, chess organizers have to keep in mind that "the customer is always right" and find a new way of attracting public attention.
Frankly speaking, I am disappointed by the results of the final match. On the one hand, Boris is a true professional who has earned the right to have a shot at the World Champion title by being loyal to chess for decades. Using GM Sutovsky's words, "Boris loves the game as much as Ivanchuk and is as professional in chess as Kramnik". On the other hand, Grischuk is a young and bright player who, while being somewhat careless and obsessed with poker, proves that one doesn't have to live and talk chess 24/7 to succeed. Or did Caissa just choose her more loyal fan? Of course, my opinion is biased (since I and Alexander are in the same age group and both hail from Russia), but I believe the match between generations - Anand and Grischuk - would have been more appealing than a confrontation of two renowned chess veterans. It's hard to promote the event, there is no drama. Even in terms of ratings the situation is dim: Anand is #1 at 2817, Gelfand is #16 at 2733. FIDE will probably have difficulties finding a sponsor for this match unless one of the native countries of the grandmasters (Israel or India) comes into play.
Anyway, the 2011 Candidates Matches are over. Congrats to Boris Gelfand, the winner!
Chess theory is based on general principles, regularities, notions. They help us improve our chess understanding and become better players. However, following general principles religiously, without taking into account the features of each particular position, can be harmful. Apart from logic, chess has a different side, which seems to be irrational at first glance, but also has its ground. I mean moves that dont fit the conventional rules. For example, a knight willingly gets placed on the rim of the board, the king stuck in the middle of the board in the middlegame, an untypical sacrifice occurs, etc. Feeling when to follow rules, and when to break them, makes a master.
Dr. Tarrasch received a letter from an angry reader who claimed that you wrote that we should place rooks behind passed pawns in the endgame. I followed your stupid advice and lost!. In his next column Tarrasch commented on this ironically: Here is the new rule. You should always place your rook behind passed pawns in the endgame, except for the situations when it doesnt make sense.
A typical example of a non-standard method of thinking is making an intermediate move instead of a recapture or moving a piece away. For instance, first give a check, and only then recapture. This trick is often missed by one or both of the players since it seems to break the standard pattern of calculating lines. The main ideas behind intermediate moves are: improve the position of ones pieces, gain a tempo, put an end to your opponents combination. Intermediate moves are especially dangerous in long forced lines since its very easy to miss them when calculating a few moves ahead. Therefore, you should always stay alert when pondering seemingly forced lines. Ask yourself: is it really so? Or are any deviations possible?
A fresh example from the Candidates Matches:
Another type of unconventional moves is the so-called irrational moves; moves that contradict the general principles. To find such moves one should understand the position deeply and be able to take an unbiased look at it. Planning and prophylactic thinking may come to ones aid here. If you study carefully the position, your ideas and your opponents plans, you are more likely to spot something new.
One more example of non-standard moves is sacrifices that lead to material imbalances. We have discussed these in previous articles at Chess.com. If your thinking is rigid (e.g. based on conventional value of the pieces), you are likely to miss such opportunities.
To sum it all up, rules (principles, regularities, etc.) have two roles. On the one hand, they help us find plans and moves. If you have a certain level & experience in chess, you can save time and make a standard move quickly. On the other hand, if you adhere to stereotypes, you might miss lots of valuable chances. Your task is to get a deep understanding of the current position, while keeping in mind that time is limited. This will help you find unexpected and very strong moves, as well as eventually win the game.
One of the ways of extending your notion of how one can play chess is to study games of creative chess players who like to improvise, e.g. Aronian or Morozevich. Dont forget to solve chess compositions and play training games in non-standard positions (those can be found in special books or software). The less dogmatic and more creative your chess thinking is, the higher the chances of finding the right approach to the position and surprising your opponent.
After mixing up moves in the opening, I still got a double-edged position. Instead of playing f5 at the right moment, I played a standard move 0-0-0 and could have fallen into a worse position. At move 19 I chose the wrong move order, but Inna returned the favor and captured on f6. Meanwhile, after Nh6 she would have got a better position. Later on she also had chances to fight for an advantage, but missed them, and the game ended in a draw.
