I do the same thing all the time.  It is really obnoxious!!!!

First page.

 Online chess maybe is not stimulating, chess is a matter of personal interaction...

 My advice too is to play active (rapid) chess also for one year or more... Then you will learn that when you play chess, you have to be suspicious and rely vastly on "second thoughts", as a child who hopefully learns to watch about cars before it goes on the road!

 Give it some time and keep going!

"That is psychological"

That may be, or may not be. Or maybe everything is psychological. I'm not wise enough to make that determination. All I can say is that, although winning is nicer than losing, winning doesn't particularly elate me and losing doesn't particularly deflate me. But playing can excite me. . . and that's why I play.

My post, and hopefully my further comments, focused on at my inability to think faster and more accurately in a faster time control.  All this about the object of chess, or the reasons for playing blitz or whatever have nothing to do with anything (in my post, that is).  These arguments are getting too circumlocutious for me.

   YOU:  "then the point, I am assuming, would not be to think about your performance too much..."
   ME:  "Rather than thinking about the point as not beng concerned with performan ce , I think the point might be more accurately thought of as not worrying about results .  Winning and losing doesn't overly concern me, though, of course, winning is more gratifying than losing... My complaint from the quoted passage wasn't directed at my failure to win, but at my seeming inability to play stronger"
   YOU: "I never said you should care about results... If you are concerned with performance, then it is because you want to win... I never said the word "win" or "winning" in the comment I made about the quoted passage. "
   ME: "Well, right or wrong, I equated your comment on performance with winning, since winning is one well-worn measure of performance.  So, I was merely  differentiating my own perception of performance which doesn't really depend on winning."
   YOU:  " There is the object of chess, which is to win (by checkmate, resignation, time)."

"Well, right or wrong, I equated your comment on performance with winning, since winning is one well-worn measure of performance.  So, I was merely  differentiating my own perception of performance which doesn't really depend on winning."

(a) There is not being attached to winning or losing.  That is psychological.

(b) There is the object of chess, which is to win (by checkmate, resignation, time).

(c) If you want to create your own measure of performance which does not include winning in any way whatsoever, you are free to do that.

"By elaborating on my own perspective doesn't mean I'm putting words in your mouth."

By the way you made your comments, it could have been taken to be rhetorical (a strawman argument).

Well, right or wrong, I equated your comment on performance with winning, since winning is one well-worn measure of performance.  So, I was merely  differentiating my own perception of performance which doesn't really depend on winning.  By elaborating on my own perspective doesn't mean I'm putting words in your mouth.

Blitz games are all about instinct, so, yes, I guess I like shooting from the hip... extemporaneous chess.

I think it's great that you like playing chess, whatever form it may be.  I am not judging standard chess over rapid chess or correspondence chess or chess960 or any other chess variant.  Each individual has to find what chess form(s) they enjoy playing.  I am happy you have found that you like rapid chess & I wish you the best in your continued progression.

"Rather than thinking about the point as not beng concerned with performace , I think the point might be more accurately thought of as not worrying about results .  Winning and losing doesn't overly concern me, though, of course, winning is more gratifying than losing."

I never said you should care about results. 

"But moves and concepts do concern me and finding beautiful moves, impossible moves and even tactical blows, and avoiding falling victim to the same...

If you are concerned with performance, then it is because you want to win.  Not caring about results is a psychological way of looking at games - you don't get attached to winning or losing.  Sentence 1 and sentence 2 are not the same thing.

"...(that are often even easier to spot in blitz than in regular chess because your opponents moves are generally weaker than what he might make in regular chess) is almost my raison d'etre for playing, that and possibly the adrenaline rush from time pressure.'"

So you want to play games based on chess instinct, not games where you have to sit on a position, look at possible variations, give your opponent time to look at deeper strategy or tactics.  Ok.

"My complaint from the quoted passage wasn't directed at my failure to win, but at my seeming inability to play stronger, that is to move faster with fewer blunders or miscalculations, at faster speeds."

I never said the word "win" or "winning" in the comment I made about the quoted passage. 

Rather than thinking about the point as not beng concerned with performace , I think the point might be more accurately thought of as not worrying about results .  Winning and losing doesn't overly concern me, though, of course, winning is more gratifying than losing.  But moves and concepts do concern me and finding beautiful moves, impossible moves and even tactical blows, and avoiding falling victim to the same (that are often even easier to spot in blitz than in regular chess because your opponents moves are generally weaker than what he might make in regular chess) is almost my raison d'etre for playing, that and possibly the adrenaline rush from time pressure.

My complaint from the quoted passage wasn't directed at my failure to win, but at my seeming inability to play stronger, that is to move faster with fewer blunders or miscalculations, at faster speeds.

Thanks for your feedback.

Just in case my previous comments did not speak to this, I think it's great that you play chess just for fun recreationally, and are not interested in competitive chess.

I guess then the point would be maybe not to take it that seriously.  If you are playing chess for fun recreationally, then the point, I am assuming, would not be to think about your performance too much, just do it as a recreational activity and try and enjoy the experience as much as possible.

If your focus is not on playing blitz games to improve your standard game play, then that is your choice.  I was not saying that is what you were doing, nor was I saying that was the only reason a person could play blitz games.

When you made the point:

"I miss so many things I shouldn't miss - and usually, though not always, see them right after I move and I almost always end a game in time trouble relative to my opponent."

I think it gave the impression to me that you were somehow rating yourself on your abilities as a chess player, and I was making the comment that GMs & IMs do not put as much weight on these issues (my chess coach is an IM) -

But if you want to judge yourself on your ability based on blitz games, then go for it.  There are such things as rapid tournaments, where you are actually being judged on how well you can play chess quickly.

I think what your chess coach says is very true if . . .

. . .if you see blitz and standard chess as extensions of the same game, rather than individual enitities, and if great improvement of standard chess is your goal.

I'm among those who perceive blitz as a separate entity, and how, or even if, it affects my standard game is of no concern to me because I don't play standard games anymore.  So, blitz' usefulness , to me, is in providing entertainment and a quick rush.

I  have a chess coach (hard to believe, I know).  I asked him at one point why fast time controls would be useful (i.e. why do IMs & GMs play games at this fast speed - how is it useful).

He said there are basically 2 reasons to play fast time controls.  One is a way to try openings.  Since you really do not have time to play full games deeply and thoroughly with fast time controls, you can take snapshots of how openings work since you have a chance to play lots of games, so if you win out of the opening (i.e. get a good position), then the opening may be worth trying as far as tournament preparation goes.

The second reason has to do with the mental exercise of calculating quickly.  Since you have to make moves quickly, maybe that would simulate a situation in over-the-board play where you are low on time and have to make moves quickly.

However, saying that, he recommends playing long games (30 minutes per side minimum - but even better 45 minutes or even 60 minutes - or 90 minutes if you can find it).  I understand the time commitment increases tremendously the longer you dedicate to playing the game, but his recommendation is that these types of games are a better mirror of what an over-the-board tournament time control would be, so provide better practice for that reason (I will say for myself, that making the adjustment between online games and over-the-board games took a little time.  But I eventually became comfortable with it).

The trouble with causing complications is that it complicates things for both of us. One thing I do try to do is to give my opponent choices because anythime you have a choice, you have to stop and think. The trouble is, creating choices also takes time.

My strategy (my favorite time controls are anything between 5 0 and 10 0) is usually either to create tactical complications and get the other guy thinking (thereby allowing me to think while his clock is running, or if he doesn't take a long time I look to see if he made a blunder), or move very quickly (sometimes blundering a piece), get a healthy time advantage in the process, then trade down to an endgame where it's going to take him a looong time to grind out the win (from a winning position that he earned by taking extra time earlier).

Sometimes I just try to play with intensity all the way through, though!

This is sort of a Sicilian Kan variation.  10. Qe2 may be OK.  10.g3 and 10.Rf1 has also been played here. 10...Bb4 seems to be new.  Book is 10...d6 or 10...Be7 (chess.com Game Explorer only has this move).  I am not sure I like 11.Be3.  I would have tried 11.g3 and 12.O-O.  13...Nxe4? doesn't look right.  Might as well play 13...Qxc3 and win the pawn.  After 13...Nxe4, not 14.Qf3?, but 14.Bd4! and 15.Qxe4 wins the knight.  19...Qe7 looks slow, so perhaps 19...Ne7.  21...g6?? should lose to 22.Qxd5!, winning the knight.  Black should have played 21...Kd8.  But 22.Bxg6+ is also good.  Now 22...Kd8 is probably not the best move.  Perhaps 22...Kf8 or 22...hxg6 23.Qxh8+ Qf8.  Perhaps better than 23.Bf5 is 23.Be4 and 24.Bxd5.  24...Nf4?? is mate in one after 25.Bb6+, but Black can hold with 24...Nc7 and there is no mate and Black may be winning after 25...d6.