There are mulitple threads that start off as, or degenerate into, discussions about the validity of bullet chess.  I, numerous others on chess.com, and Nakamura (one of the best bullet players in the world), believe that bullet is not chess.  I was wondering what time limit it would take those who support bullet to change their stance.  If I were to challenge someone to a game of superbullett chess, with a thirty second clock, would anyone change their mind?  Fifteen seconds?  Ten seconds? or of course the ultimate example, one second?  These time limits would produce games similar to bullett in that they would be full of horrendous blunders and mainly end in timeouts, so can a ten second game also be considered chess?  It is clear to me that the game is no longer chess at somepoint, and I believe somewhere around five minutes to be the lowest limit where the game can still be considered chess (with no increment).  I am interested to see where those who support bullett chess would draw the line.

Its not a binary thing; for instance you could view 1 minute as 50% chess.

Otherwise, you have to argue that there is a specific second mark where X on the clock is chess but X-e for some infintesimal e>0 is not.

While i am not a fan of bullet chess, if you and anyone else enjoys playing it then have fun and it shouldnt matter if its considered "chess" or not.

First let me say for the millionth time that bullet chess is a fine form of entertainment for those many who enjoy it.  I don't play it.  I don't play long or standard game anymore either. I only play blitz.  I think bullet or lightning, blitz, standard and correspondence (or it's cousin, turn-based) all different animals. Each one is fine, but they can't be compared.

 In 1 min. game (2min. considering both players) it's still possible to play full 40-60 moves game that ends in checkmate or one of the players resigning. 10-15sec.games wouldn't make much sense cause it would be almost impossible to finish them other way then timeout. So I think 1 minute is the limit - atleast for me.

chess is chess until the time limit reaches a point where the person cannot even look think decide move accept and finaly punch the clock( in the best condition about .60 of a second)

So a one second game of chess would still be chess jetfighter? or do you have to have enough time to do that for 50 moves (30 seconds)?

 Even one second chess technically would still be chess, they should introduce new time limit on chess.com - 10 sec.! That could be called 'absurd chess' .

Chess is no longer chess when it is bughouse, because then it is bughouse.

I wanted to tell a lame chuck norris joke about the ludicrous chess (.6 second chess) but that just wouldnot be funny but chess is chess untill it gets utterly rediculus 1 second is rediculus id play a 2 second game k oh to add to the fact that bullet is chess heres a game

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy

I'm sorry jetfighter, but missing an easy mate in one, blundering two pieces, and leaving your queen en prise for five moves (and hanging your queen on the next to last move) while the other player for some reason does not take it is exactly why I would not consider bullet to be chess; there is not the time to properly consider moves and you see many many horrible blunders.

we need a whole new forum type: "Arguements About Bullet"

You must remember this
A kiss is just a kiss, a sigh is just a sigh.
The fundamental things apply
As time goes by.

+1 to GorillaCookies.

If it's played on a chess board, with chess pieces, but it's not chess, what is it?

Just let people do what the want to do and don't try and push your opinion onto others because you believe that it is right - everyone has their own truth I guess.

Consider the increasing limit on chess time.  If 1 min is not chess what about 61 secs?  or 121 secs? or 1 hour 1 sec?, then what about 1 year 1second?  How about 80 years 1 sec?  at some point someone will die and lose (say theres a 5 year move timer so that each turn is 10 years).

In order to define chess the way your thinking, you have to have a definate point at which chess begins as chess, and  an interval where chess is chess, and an endpoint where chess is no longer chess.  so for example 5 mins - 1 hour is "chess".  

I think bullet is chess based of the fact there is the same peices and board, but its kinda BS that a lot of the games end in time when someone just moves thier king around for 10 premoves.  But longer games you get people who use engines so its BS on that end as well.  just my 2 cents.

I am not trying to push my opinion on others nor am I arguing that bullet shouldn't be played if people enjoy it.  I do not think that bullet is chess because I don't believe you have the time necessary to make your moves; many moves often end up being random and games commonly end on time.  I have also seen people on this site fight against similar opinions tooth and nail, and I was wondering where such people would draw the line, in terms of time limits, before they recognize the game becomes absurd.  I understand that the answer to this will be subjective, and that the question itself verges on a logical falicy, but I think everyone can realize that each person has an aswer to this question.  Below the line, they believe that the game deteriorates so much that it can no longer be considered the same game.  Where would you draw the line?

Yep, I agree with everything you said except that I believe that it's still a chess, I've seen many brilliant bullet games where people (higher rated) were coming up with surprisingly good moves in split of a second. Some of this games are truly little gems, more so when you consider time limits. Where would I draw the line? I guess 1min. is the limit for me.

thats why bullet is fun you dont know whats going on kinda like playing with an impairment

Chess.....is .....in the eyes of the beholder!