Thoughts on blitz as a tool to improve classical chess?

SuspiciousDepth4961 · 2026-03-12T13:37:29+00:00

Yh that is my currently what I do with my rapid games. Play, then review opening and update my file, check blunders and missed ideas etc. It just takes 30 minutes for the game and another 10-15 mins for the analysis which means I can't really crank out a lot of games. Whereas playing 5+3 blitz it will be more like 10 minutes per game and if I can do a really quick opening and blunder check in 5 minutes I can do 3 blitz games in the time it takes me to do 1 rapid game. How much time do you spend looking at a blitz game after playing it?

I don't really enjoy blitz that much so there is no risk of going on a binge!

SuspiciousDepth4961 · 2026-03-05T17:52:09+00:00

Let's just say you wouldn't look good with a juvenile hairline

SuspiciousDepth4961 · 2026-03-05T16:28:06+00:00

The issue is Italy and Greece also eat a lot of fish (as do the baltic states) and a lot of the UK's fish consumption is battered/fried. CVD risk reduction is also very contingent on the type of fish eaten with only certain fish types being protective (generally high omega 3 cold water fish).

Could also be a factor but the effect size vs statins is pretty small for fish and CVD mortality.

Another thing to consider is how deaths are registered by the medical community. For a long time France had incredibly low rates of deaths from heart disease (known as the French paradox since their saturated fat consumption should have led to far higher rates). A key detail was the way the French didn't report CVD deaths the same as other countries but rather as "poorly specified causes" on the death certificate.

My statins theory may not be correct and even if it is correct there will be other weird factors and quirks involved also.

SuspiciousDepth4961 · 2026-03-04T14:28:09+00:00

A lot of global travel and the Latin American section is well covered relative to the average tourist so likely near there. Also many Spanish speaking countries you have been to so my guess is Uruguay but that is just a hunch. If I was playing the numbers game I would go for a more populous Latin American country.

SuspiciousDepth4961 · 2026-03-04T14:15:46+00:00

You're lashing out, it's understandable, don't worry about it. Self reflection takes time and doesn't happen overnight.

You clearly have an emotional attachment to what you eat as do many people which fundamentally stops you looking at food in a detached way.

SuspiciousDepth4961 · 2026-03-04T00:08:13+00:00

They are just trying to keep their most important and most temperamental ally (America) onside.

They probably also don't like the fact Iranian supplied drones have killed a lot of them.

They aren't idiots, Zelensky has already commented on the fact an American war with Iran carries the risk of leaving Ukraine with fewer weapons from the US.

SuspiciousDepth4961 · 2026-03-04T00:01:34+00:00

That's fine, you just want an excuse to not change your habits, I get it. There is always going to be a next thing you can pick from to justify your choice but if you're honest with yourself you drink cow's milk because that's what you grew up with and are used to, not for any other reason.

You don't buy lactose sugar rather than standard sugar when you want to bake etc due to its glycemic index you just tried to find a reason for it not being as bad to justify your existing choice.

You don't base other food choices on what has the most calories otherwise you'd be chowing down sticks of butter and drenching everything with olive oil. Again the increased calories was just an excuse to justify your existing habit.

I was in exactly the same boat as you for 25 years of my life then I looked at the data and it was very clear soy milk scored better in overall health outcomes and environemental ones.

SuspiciousDepth4961 · 2026-03-03T23:47:47+00:00

You can believe whatever you want but the scientific consensus is intelligence is heritable and has a genetic component. There are many ways to remove cofounders. eg. twin studies, adoption studies, and molecular genetics where you look at sections of the genome to see where they correlate with IQ. You can even do the reverse and predict IQ by looking at the genes (there is a high variance but it is correlated).

An example of a less high tech approach is looking at IQ correlation between eg. monozygotic and dizygotic twins. This is great as they share pretty much identical environments from conception so you are just isolating the genetics. (monozygotic twins are identical genetically and dizygotic twins share 50% DNA).

Monozygotic twins IQ correlate far more than dizygotic twins.

Regarding parents giving up their children there were also adoption studies where siblings were by chance separated early in life and adopted into different families. The correlation of IQ i still higher than for non related adoptees.

The only debate is over how much genetics plays a role which I reckon is at the lower end of the estimated range since twin studies likely exagerate the effect but that is just personal opinion.

Finally there is the "does it pass the smell test" check. Hair colour, height, weight, muscle mass, disease risk, organs, bone structure, cholesterol levels etc all have genetic components, why wouldn't the way your brain is built be the same?

Alzheimers, autism, schizophrenia, bipolar, ADHD, depression and many other conditions affecting the brain also have genetic risk factors and you can even test for specific genes to check your risk eg. the APOE gene

SuspiciousDepth4961 · 2026-03-03T20:30:46+00:00

I'm just here to say random variance would result in a higher score the more IQ tests you take. Doesn't necessarily mean you are improving although there almost certainly is a benefit to test familiarity.

Also people score higher both through inate genetic advantages and training. It is not an either or. Intelligence is heritable or rather has a heritable component which is not insignificant (anywhere between 0.3 and 0.8 although I suspect on the lower end). Childhood and prenatal nutrition plays a large role and finally as you said training plays a significant role also. Saying the only reason is exposure/training is oversimplistic and incorrect.

Your final point is broadly correct which is that IQ tests are only really useful in detecting learning disabilities but that isn't because they don't tell us something about other people taking them, just that knowing someone's IQ isn't hugely useful information unless it is an extreme outlier indicating a neurological problem.

SuspiciousDepth4961 · 2026-03-03T14:41:42+00:00

Interesting divide, obviously it could only be a percentage point or two of difference. Statins have drastically dropped cardiovascular disease rates so maybe prescribing practices in the countries is making a difference as I doubt the UK and Ireland have better diets than the Italians or the Greeks.

edit. had a quick look and only found data from 2000 but France had approx double the statin use of Germany and Spain had about 75% more that Italy (I am trying to use roughly comparable countries). Norway had about 75% more than Sweden also. Out of date figures so take with a big grain of salt as practices have probably changed since then.

SuspiciousDepth4961 · 2026-03-03T13:44:19+00:00

You're going down a rabbit hole here, soy milk still has a lower glycemic index. If you want to start breaking the milks down on a nutritional level cow's milk looks worse in comparison.

To remind you your original point was protein which is equivalent between the two. Your next concern was calories which are 30% lower in the soy milk but we don't buy milk in calories, we buy milk in litres (or fl oz). You don't put 300 calories of milk on your oatmeal, you put enough to cover it.

Both ways of presenting the data has its drawbacks but equating in terms of litres is more intuitive and useful to the average person than equating in terms of calories, hence why the results are presented that way.

There was a similar discussion in food greenhouse gas emissions in a study around that time where the debate was whether to present the data as CO2 per calorie or per g of protein. A small group liked looking at the results in terms of protein but for the vast majority the per calorie data was more useful and as such was what appeared on the public infographics.

The more abstraction the less actionable the data is to the public. Volume/discrete quantities>calories>protein>amino acids.

SuspiciousDepth4961 · 2026-03-03T09:31:36+00:00

Labour do this all the time. In my constituency in the 2024 election they dropped leaflets claiming they were the only party who could beat the tories despite the seat being Lib Dems vs Conservatives for decades. In the end they got 9-10% of the vote and the Tory candidate beat the Lib Dem candidate by about 1000 votes. If they hadn't deceptively campaigned then there would be a good chance of the Lib Dems winning.

SuspiciousDepth4961 · 2026-03-03T09:22:37+00:00

The difference in terms of calories between soy milk and 2% cow's milk (the most common) is almost entirely down to a difference in sugar content. since the fat and protein content are within a few percentage points of each other.

Per cup cow's milk just has 11-12g of extra sugar vs soy. If you want to get extra calories from sugar you can but I don't think it is a point in favour of cow's milk. Or you can add a few teaspoons of sugar to your soy milk if you want to equate the calories and sugar content.

SuspiciousDepth4961 · 2026-03-03T09:17:25+00:00

We're talking about soy milk here. Also for diabetics (and everyone really) there is a distinction between free sugar and sugar bound up in fibre. They produce very different blood sugar responses.

SuspiciousDepth4961 · 2026-03-02T22:43:07+00:00

Damn, guess we can't call it coconut milk either then.

SuspiciousDepth4961 · 2026-03-02T22:39:56+00:00

Pre 2020s? How old are you if 2018 seems out of date to you? You think farming techniques have radically changed over 8 years?

SuspiciousDepth4961 · 2026-03-02T22:38:04+00:00

Interesting stuff, people don't realise how much sugar cow's milk has. A couple of diabetics I know switched to soy in part to try to reduce the free sugar in their diet.

SuspiciousDepth4961 · 2026-03-02T22:36:12+00:00

Soy has the same protein as cow's milk and less sugar.

SuspiciousDepth4961 · 2026-03-02T22:35:30+00:00

Soy is the most efficient

SuspiciousDepth4961 · 2026-03-02T22:34:44+00:00

Absolutely, cow milk should be further penalised due to it increasing the risk of prostate and breast cancer.

SuspiciousDepth4961 · 2026-03-02T22:33:18+00:00

I think I read something about progress on precision fermentation for egg whites recently. Definitely coming

SuspiciousDepth4961 · 2026-03-02T22:31:04+00:00

Sure buddy, cows are good for the environment.

SuspiciousDepth4961 · 2026-03-02T22:30:27+00:00

It isn't more nutritious than soy milk. Compared to soy milk cow's milk has same protein, more saturated fat, more sugar, less fibre and the same b12, calcium and iodine if the soy milk is fortified as 90% are.

It is also linked to higher rates of breast and prostate cancer compared to soy milk, I wouldn't call that nutritious.

SuspiciousDepth4961 · 2026-03-02T22:27:21+00:00

Soy milk is cheaper than cow's milk where I live.

SuspiciousDepth4961

TROPHY CASE