Of coure bullet/blitz is fun and has its place, but advice geared to that time control could and should be distinguished from long term improvement in classical chess.
In classical the same probabilistic attidude could be usefull and Smerdon also uses it to defend his choice for the Portuguese Scandinavian. Using lichess blitz/bullet games to make a repertoire would entail some risk that you hate your(self) choice for hours while having the worse position.
Lastly, I don't particularly like using dubious ploys trying to exploit holes in ones opening knowledge. It is part of the game, may be a good winning strategy and tricking someone tactically is fine, but to consciously search for that from the get go is not for me. In aggregate it incentivices more choirs for eveybody: learning replys to dubious lines that are seldom played
Fair point that blitz and classical are quite different games that require different strategies. The thing I like about the Mortimer variation, in particular, is that the risk of getting a bad position is not clearly higher than in more mainstream lines.
Why is it dubious to play a less common line? Am I honor-bound to play only the lines I'm sure my opponent is comfortable with?
The major distinction is blitz chess. Implicit in most advice is that you want to improve on the long term for classical time control. You don't want to travel to a game, hope for some trick, let your opponent think for 10 minutes and have a slightly worse positon than you could have had for hours. Even if you win immediately you're not that happy: You produced or learned nothing for that game (maybe even had the same position in some blitz games) and wait till your friends are done with theirs.
I think 3 + 0, which you usually play, is more like bullet than blitz and teaches you significantly less about chess in general and thus classical chess. It is more prone for the tricks you describe. I've written a short essay on the matter, if you're interested I'll sent it to you for consideration in your next post.
Of coure bullet/blitz is fun and has its place, but advice geared to that time control could and should be distinguished from long term improvement in classical chess.
In classical the same probabilistic attidude could be usefull and Smerdon also uses it to defend his choice for the Portuguese Scandinavian. Using lichess blitz/bullet games to make a repertoire would entail some risk that you hate your(self) choice for hours while having the worse position.
Lastly, I don't particularly like using dubious ploys trying to exploit holes in ones opening knowledge. It is part of the game, may be a good winning strategy and tricking someone tactically is fine, but to consciously search for that from the get go is not for me. In aggregate it incentivices more choirs for eveybody: learning replys to dubious lines that are seldom played
Fair point that blitz and classical are quite different games that require different strategies. The thing I like about the Mortimer variation, in particular, is that the risk of getting a bad position is not clearly higher than in more mainstream lines.
Why is it dubious to play a less common line? Am I honor-bound to play only the lines I'm sure my opponent is comfortable with?
The major distinction is blitz chess. Implicit in most advice is that you want to improve on the long term for classical time control. You don't want to travel to a game, hope for some trick, let your opponent think for 10 minutes and have a slightly worse positon than you could have had for hours. Even if you win immediately you're not that happy: You produced or learned nothing for that game (maybe even had the same position in some blitz games) and wait till your friends are done with theirs.
I think 3 + 0, which you usually play, is more like bullet than blitz and teaches you significantly less about chess in general and thus classical chess. It is more prone for the tricks you describe. I've written a short essay on the matter, if you're interested I'll sent it to you for consideration in your next post.