Anyway, it's still nice to know that there are titled players who are not "magically" good (because that "strong players have good instincts" theory is often used) at bullet; perhaps blitz, but  1 0 bullet is a somewhat different animal. Having a couple of extra seconds is often more important than having an extra piece in a blocked position where it's hard to make progress.

Bullet is too fast for me

For the most part bullet is just a test of chess instincts, and yes, chess instincts are formed by prior experiences.  However, if your instincts include a sense for when to randomize or confuse the issue at an appropriate moment, then you can use that in lots of creative ways in 1 0.  However, it's hard to cite examples, as the main issues are often more "human" than purely chessic in nature, - it would take a lot of annotation to explain the psychological subtext behind most of the nuances of bullet play.

Ok, here's an example: http://www.chess.com/livechess/game.html?id=292089306

Now, I'm not a strong bullet player, so I might not be doing it right, but I was basically just pushing pawns and not hanging pieces because I couldn't figure out what else to do and didn't want to lose on time.

Although it's true that one can often get away with material sacrifices, it's not my cup of tea to randomly do so because it involves a lot of speculation and the hope that the defender will blunder mate in the process, rather than actual quality in the idea. I guess whimsically sacrificing leads to original play, but, to me, not original in a good way.

I think pretty much by definition, original play in a bullet game has to involve guesswork (which leads to randomness), because if you know the move will work, then that means you have seen positions like it many times before.

This discussion has made me hungry for a bit of carefree 1 0.

I disagree completely about bullet being less "original" in style than standard.  There's vast scope for improvision as a result of material concerns having far less significance.

What's ironic is that I think that bullet is in fact the time control where you are making moves that others have played before. I don't mean this in precise terms; what I mean is that in a bullet game, you often only have enough time to conjure very simple, prosaic, hackneyed plans -- such as pushing your kingside pawns forward, exchanging pieces, putting your rooks on central files, etc. These plans are usually effective enough, but I don't feel like I'm being very creative when I carry them out -- I only know they are decent because I've executed them a million times before.

In fact, I believe that I have never, ever, discovered a new idea in a blitz game (blitz, not just bullet). The games always, with no exception, involve ideas that have been seen so many times before by the two players. And the reason for that is straightforward: how else would you be able to know the move is good without calculating it?

That's not to say it's not an achievement to become good at blitz or bullet -- it can often say a lot for your consistency; your ability to make non-blunderous, modestly constructive moves in diminutive amounts of time. But the most reliable way to determine your OTB skill is to simply play OTB games -- there is no substitute.

There is plenty of thought involved in bullet chess and lightning chess. Really, there are different kinds of analysis required. I love lightning and play it exclusively these days. I may be in the minority but I find it much more mentally stimulating than standard. Playing the same moves that people played 500 years ago doesn't really interest me.

I'll agree with EgeDemir that if you're playing against someone who's using an engine, you're play will probably improve from that exerience. Though it's probably frustrating at the same time. The flipside is that those using an engine are more than likely not improving because they aren't learning the good, the bad, and the ugly through experience. That's how I learn not to do things - by doing them and getting my butt handed to me for it.

I agree , Someones use Engine in long games (standard) , but There is a way for this.You can report them and They will get ban. 

And , When you play with engine , maybe you can lost your rating but you are improving your chess.So , Don't think : i lost point.

playing standard is way better...it gives you the opportunity to come up with some nice ideas....in other words, standar chess is the real chess game .......but today there are so many people using engine that is not fair, not only in chess but every single game online...scrambles, dama, battleship... u name it  ...thats why I rather play bullet or 3 minutes blitz...im not a fast thinker i would like to play more standard but there is a real problem out there. I dont know if it is just me that Im paranoid about it but i dont feel confortable playing standad

velian, i agree with you!!!!!

The thing that I like about blitz - and bullet really, is you really find out if you know your opening(s) / defense(s) that you've been studying because you don't have time to look at reference material. Also - you can play a lot more games and get more and more comfortable with those openings so that you're not as surprised in standard.

5|2 Blitz is where it's at ;)

I agree with egeDemir. Bullet is fun but Standard is better for your chess.

It's very nice, and interesting, to see this opinion from a CM. It shows that even strong players like them feel the effects of time, and how it makes it so much harder to play those brilliant moves!

what is bots???????