Yes if you'll play many moves but I think an engine will finish a bullet opponent so quickly that it may be doable in 1-2 min.

The key to becoming good at bullet is to never play other types of chess. Then you'll be able to beat the likes of Nakamura because you are just faster than him and you won't waste time thinking about what to do like he does.

The downside of this is that slow players that aren't ready to realize this will hate you because they've only played bullet once and have not magically improved as you have. Bullet is a tough game and it isn't for everyone. Be content with your powers and only use them for good.

No. He can mate in a minute. Moving quicker isn't everything.

And you know this how? And please don't tell me "in your experience" becuase we have enough of that crap on this forum...

Based on what exactly?

*grabs popcorn*

You gonna answer or are you just going to deflect?

There are 3 differences between bullet and tournament chess:

- In Bullet one plays way more intuitive moves than precisely calculated moves. (if you have a decent level, you WILL calculate some things even in 1 0 bullet. Taking 10 seconds in  a crucial moment to check a combination is possible and necessary if you want to reach a certain level)

- A time advantage is a real factor that may turn a game. But weak players tend to over-estimate the time factor. The better you get, the faster you can play GOOD moves. Just clicking as fast as you can will neither win you a bullet game nor any common video game.

- In Bullet it is important to quickly anticipate your opponents moves. Especially if you play for a time edge in the endgame, anticipating "useless" checks will save you some valuable seconds. This is a trick that of course plays almost no role in tournament chess. Still, even there it is useful to sometimes be able to predict bad moves.

Just play with 1s increment and mouse speed will play zero role. :)

If decent players play 1 1 bullet, they will not flag unless the connection is bad as you can play 2-3 moves in one second. 2 moves in one second is possible even OTB.

Bullet is of course not as significant as Blitz, which is less significant than Rapid and tournament chess. Still I don't want to judge whether you need 10, 50 or 200 bullet games to get a result that can be compared with one game at tournament time.

But anyways the decisive factor to win in Bullet is chess skill. If you are slightly faster but keep blundering pieces, you might win one lucky game, but never remain on top in a long match.

There are many good chess players, that are weak at Bullet but I have never seen a good Bullet player that was weak at chess. 

I think what I just observed resloves this debate. In fact FMs and GMs are dominating the bullet games on this site. Thats speaks out itself!

No one is saying u can't be a GM and be good at bullet, he point is that there are reasons why ur ratings for standard and bullet can be have a significant difference

Then OL2000+ cannot be rated 1000 bullet and defeated easily by OL1300 following the same logic.

So many delusional : Malakhov, Kasparov, Movsesian, Anand...

Actually, it's not only for very strong professionals. Here an excerpt of article about the subject from chessvibes.com (http://www.chessvibes.com/advertisement/nakamuras-bullet-chess/) :

US Champion Hikaru Nakamura and Bruce Harper have written the first book about bullet chess.

The authors discuss the relationship between the position on the board and time on the clock, the techniques and dangers of "pre-moving", bullet openings, and the importance of the initiative and consistent strategy.

They also explore the psychology of bullet chess and the most common causes of tactical oversights and blunders. You will learn how to apply the principles of bullet chess to time scrambles in standard chess.

Is bullet any good for your play? YES, says former US Champion Yasser Seirawan in his foreword. It teaches pattern recognition, "ideas are reinforced, helping you with your calculation during tournament play".

Yes, that's why I gave you an example of how I did it once. You prepare the plan by analysing your previous games. And yes ,it makes sense to analyse your games even if it's bullet. You don't need to analyze all your games, just the ones which seem worthy.

And those who did not "developed a sufficiently subconcious positional understanding" can die... or train until reaching that "sufficiently subconcious positional understanding". But how do they train?

" By strictly observing Botvinnik's rule regarding the thorough analysis of one's own games, with the years I have come to realize that this provides the foundation for the continuous development of chess mastery." -  Garry Kasparov

I play way too much blitz chess. It rots the brain just as surely as alcohol. - Nigel Short

Yes, I have played a blitz game once. It was on a train, in 1929.  - Mikhail Botvinnik

He who analyses blitz is stupid.  -  Rashid Nezhmetdinov

Well, we are always going to find GMs with strange opinions; unfortunately, GM Seirawan, I can't agree with you: Bullet assumes your pattern recognition; it doesn't teach it or reinforce it.

As for time scrambles: Time scrambles in a long game are not as easy to compare to a short time control game as one might think. The point is that, even when you are down to your last few minutes, the fact that you have been thinking about the position for hours gives you a sense of closeness to the struggle (you have familiarized yourself with plans, the nature of the position, stuff like this), probably making it easier to find the right moves; in a blitz game, the position is happening in front of you, almost before you can fully process it, making the time scrambles of a more mindless nature, at least in my opinion.

So many stupid guys then... In fact, all blitz players.

Unless analysing does not means the same in this context.

Just wonder how does GM prepare blitz championship? I mean is there never any main lines played in those events?

A GM may well do extensive opening preparation for a blitz tournament. But for patzers it is counter-productive, except to drill opening lines into one's head effectively.

As for analyzing blitz, what good its it other than to pick out simple tactical motifs that were missed in the chaos. There is little to depth to a blitz game, even among titled players.

Not only GM.

Preparing a game is not only about openings. It's better to understand the main ideas thant just memorizing openings.

Improvement come from analysing your mistakes. It's not that hard to understand.