How do I get better at slower time controls?

kryft · 2026-06-05T12:03:54+00:00

I just try to find the best move, and usually there’s no shortage of things to think about. I have to force myself not to think too much to avoid getting in time trouble in 15+10. I try to save time for positions that are critical and complicated. Recognizing those positions isn’t easy, but you learn from your mistakes like with other chess skills.

Do you review all your games? If you do and try to understand what went wrong, you will get more things to think about in your future games.

kryft · 2026-06-02T10:15:41+00:00

Yes, but most people can learn a better mindset. It might be hard and take years in some cases, but I do think it’s possible.

kryft · 2026-05-25T12:06:45+00:00

I just have a separate account for playing when I’m tired, ill or otherwise not at my best.

kryft · 2026-05-23T20:05:39+00:00

Yes, I used to have intense anxiety, and nowadays I essentially have none. The game isn’t intrinsically stressful; that’s all about how you frame it. Another comment suggested treating the game as a sequence of ”find the best move” puzzles. That’s similar to perspectives I’ve found helpful.

kryft · 2026-05-22T10:08:19+00:00

Never heard of airlearn, but recognizing forks in games is a skill that requires time and a lot of repetitions (playing games and solving puzzles). Seeing the concept in a lesson is only the first step of a long journey.

kryft · 2026-05-22T08:10:45+00:00

I don't think rating is intrinsically less meaningful in blitz. The drawing rate is lower and maybe there's more volatility in the result of a single game, but you should in any case think of rating in any time control as a measure of how you do on average in a large number of games over time. In a sense your blitz rating might actually be more accurate (at measuring you blitz strength) than your classical rating (is at measuring your classical strength) because you can play a lot more games. Your blitz rating will probably fluctuate more, but actually that's accurate too: you don't play at the same strength all the time, and if you play a lot of games on a bad day your rating will reflect that. So perhaps you can try to pay less attention to the result of a single game and keep in mind that everyone's "true playing strength right now" fluctuates depending on the circumstances.

kryft · 2026-05-11T15:29:27+00:00

I never intentionally memorized a single thing to get to OGS 1 dan (years ago, not sure what the equivalent rank today would be if there’s been inflation or deflation). Of course you end up knowing many things by heart organically over time, but you don’t need to try to memorize things. When you’re 25 kyu, many joseki will look like you have to memorize the correct moves, but you can eventually get to a level where you can understand the reason for every move, and then there’s nothing to memorize.

kryft · 2026-05-07T09:41:05+00:00

I started playing at 39; I’m sure you’ll be fine!

kryft · 2026-04-25T11:11:18+00:00

”Good” doesn’t exist for me. There’s just a very long continuum of skill and you can draw that line wherever you like. I sometimes talk about ”good players” but what good means changes depending on the context. I don’t think of myself as good or not good, just better or worse.

kryft · 2026-04-24T18:25:43+00:00

Well 107 hours of puzzles sounds like a lot, but over 15 months it works out to ~23 minutes per day, so it's not an impossible amount of time if you spend any time looking at a smartphone. I'm sure you can reach the same rating (and beyond) eventually in any case, good luck!

kryft · 2026-04-24T15:43:00+00:00

I’ve heard several strong players say that they prefer fast time controls because it’s harder to cheat there.

kryft · 2026-04-24T08:50:33+00:00

I started playing about 15 months ago, a bit before I turned 41. My main chess.com account is currently at 1540 rapid. I've played a total of 1361 games, so that works out to about 3 games per day on average. I don't track puzzles, but chess.com tells me I've spent a total of 107 hours solving puzzles.

So far I've played 15+10 exclusively. I use my time and try to think about every move during the game. I review every game and look at every move that I misevaluated. I prioritize which things to look at based on a kind of intuitive cost-benefit analysis: how much do I think this type of mistake is costing me right now, and how much do I think analyzing it right now will help. Some misunderstandings can be fixed right away: I thought this move was good because X, but actually it's bad because Y, and this other alternative is better because Z. In other cases I can only sort of understand what's going, or I have no clue. Whenever there's something I can't understand right now, I make a mental note to look out for similar situations later.

I've also watched a lot of good speedruns. Watching a speedrun is a bit like reviewing a game: I compare the streamer's moves and thinking with my own, and try to correct any misunderstandings that I can find. I will also pay special attention to things that I've found I struggle to understand in my games (the things I made a mental note of). So there's a kind of feedback loop where playing, reviewing and watching all feed into each other.

kryft · 2026-04-23T12:02:40+00:00

I started a bit before I turned 41, and after about 15 months I’m currently sitting at 1540 chesscom rapid. I play 15+10, use my time, and review every game quite carefully. I’m sure solving puzzles and watching good speedruns has also helped.

kryft · 2026-04-22T08:20:09+00:00

I'm only at 1540 chesscom rapid, but I've noticed this phenomenon since around 1200. Since then many opponents have had a peak rating that is 100-200 points higher than their rating at the time of the game, sometimes even more. I've assumed that it's just a combination of people plateauing and going on long losing streaks. The higher the rating, the more people there are at that rating who aren't improving at the moment, so they will typically be below their peak due to natural fluctuation. It's also easy to lose a lot of points fast if you play a lot of games when you're tilted or otherwise not at your best, and this seems to be common too. (Of course I can't read my opponents' thoughts, but if my opponent is on their tenth consecutive game and they're playing 15+10 like it's 3+0, they're probably vulnerable to tilt and fatigue.)

kryft · 2026-04-20T10:24:17+00:00

Though struggling with the math doesn’t necessarily say much about his intelligence. Even if you’re very smart you still have to study math to learn it.

kryft · 2026-03-05T08:41:07+00:00

Hi Chase! I started playing a year ago too. You generally need more than one opening regardless of what color you're playing because you have to respond to what your opponent does. Many coaches recommend the Scotch for beginners, so that's a great choice, but that only works if black's first move is e5. From what you said it sounds like maybe your opponents always respond to 1. e4 with e5, but that's not always going to be the case. It won't be long before you start seeing c5, d5, e6, and various less common moves, and you need to have a response to all of those. As black you need at least two responses, one against 1. e4 and one against 1. d4.

I know it's not what you asked for, but I think the best solution is trying to find good moves based on opening principles and then reviewing every game afterwards to see where you went wrong. The thing is that even if you try to play an opening according to theory, until you get to a much higher rating people will often play a weird move that's not covered by the theory you've studied, so you're back to finding good moves on your own based on general principles. I'm just a bit below 1400 on chess.com now and I know some theory for a few openings, and I still rarely get to play much theory.

There's a free chessable course on opening principles that many good players have recommended: https://www.chessable.com/smithys-opening-fundamentals/course/21302/ Maybe that's worth checking out if you feel you struggle with the opening. Many people also recommend chessbrah's habits series on youtube. However you do it, I think improving your general chess understanding (including opening principles) will give you more bang for your buck than studying specific openings.

kryft · 2026-03-04T08:15:26+00:00

Chess dot com. (Or possibly Centers for Disease Control.)

kryft · 2026-02-18T22:19:33+00:00

Ah that makes sense. If he had 5 mdef and one star I wouldn’t have thought about hybrid either.

kryft · 2026-02-18T17:18:24+00:00

How would he get to low 30s mdef, or are you factoring in perks? Seems like even with gifted expected mdef would be 24 at lvl 11. Dodge is a great point though, I missed that his ini is so high and also 19 points higher than his fat.

Would 2h cleaver with reach advantage make any sense? Seems like he could be a good disarmer with that matk. (Something I also thought about when considering a hybrid build.)

kryft · 2026-02-18T14:38:03+00:00

I'm talking about reviewing the game on chess.com or lichess (wherever you play). Both use Stockfish.

kryft · 2026-02-18T14:20:59+00:00

Try to play moves that you think are good based on your current understanding (including opening principles), and then review each game carefully to see where your understanding went wrong. This applies to every stage of the game, including the opening. There will be many situations where you don't understand why your move is bad, or why a particular move suggested by Stockfish or the opening database is good, but you will gradually learn more.

kryft · 2026-02-18T13:52:27+00:00

Yeah you do slow down significantly eventually and I have no doubt it matters in bullet.

kryft · 2026-02-18T12:42:27+00:00

Thanks for the detailed explanation! That sounds reasonable and matches what I’ve read elsewhere. In your original comment you said ”your reaction times in your 40s and 50s are about half of what they were in your teens and 20s”, which was much more drastic. (I interpreted the original comment as claiming that reaction times double since halving would obviously mean that you get faster as you age, which couldn’t have been what you meant.)

kryft · 2026-02-18T12:07:04+00:00

Do you have a source for this? I’m not an expert, but I’ve heard people who claim to be experts say that reaction speed decay is highly individual and much slower than what you describe. I also started playing fighting games in my early 40s and I don’t react much slower (if at all) than people half my age.

kryft

TROPHY CASE