is bullet chess "silly"

 Heh, I'm one of those bullet game fans( If you look at my rating ). Umm, yes, I had some games were my opponent and I made some silly moves but it's just for the thrill and fun of it in my opinion.

To be honest, if your bullet is not at least 2200, you make a whole lot of silly moves, as do probably your opponents.

Well, having now attained a respectable bullet rating of 2300+ (my Blitz is usually around 2050 and my Standard is 2300), I can tell you it's still a mess of pathetic blunders from both sides.

Bingo.  1 min chess here is nothing like the pace of FICS or ICC.  I've said before that 1 min chess here is more like 3 minute chess :)

At least that's how it was a year ago when I was on.  Evidently from what you're saying the situation hasn't changed.

Lag amounting to about 1/4 of the total time on the clocks does not stop the game being bullet. In fact it does not make the game as slow as say a 75 second lightning game, because the nature of lag is that all the extra time is on your opponents move (for both players, regardless of who is lagging), so the extra time is not as useful as extra time on your own move.

Bullet games are not chess, you use chess pieces but there is no reasoning involved, it's like playing parachute chess. There's no reasoning in bullet, if you reason your clock will expire, so it is all about playing safe moves and having a GOOD INTERNET CONECTION!!

flowerew's comment is of course over-simplified, as it is all relative. Worse players play worse moves. Players with less time play worse moves.

An interesting question is how good (or bad) are the moves of one standard of player at one speed compared to another standand of player at another speed. What rating would a good bullet player such as Nakamura have if he was playing at bullet speed and his opponents were playing at 40 moves in 3 hours? What rating would he have if his opponents had 3 days for each move, like on chess.com? Currently, it is impractical to answer these questions directly, but Einstein provides a way in which they could be tested in principle (and perhaps for real in the future). This is to use the time dilation effect around a black hole. We need to put Nakamura in a spaceship and send him into orbit close to the event horizon of a black hole while his opponent orbits much further away. Constraints on this solution are that the black hole would need to be heavy enough to ensure that the tidal forces would not rip Nakamura and his spaceship to pieces, but small enough to avoid excessive lag due to the distance from the event horizon to where the second player is. The latter is not a big problem, as the lag is only really significant for Nakamura, and the massive time dilation at his location reduces the effect greatly.

Until the above experiment is practical, it would be very interesting to analyse the quality of play using objective methods such as measuring Rybka's evaluation of each move played by a player and using this as a reasonable measure of inaccuracy of play. Rybka may not be perfect, but it is stronger than any human, and as close to perfect as we have available. Using this method, it would be possible to compare the quality of play of a bullet player against the quality of play of a turn-based player in absolute terms. What we would find would undoubtedly be that while for an individual player, bullet chess quality would be lower than at any other speed, very good players' bullet chess would be better than much weaker players' normal chess.

When i play bullet, if i'm play unrated, my only aim is to checkmated my opp by setting up an complex attack at fast as i can. Maybe i''ll stop play rated for a while, not tried to hard to won on time. Just play and attack.

I've noticed that a lot of these one minute games seem to take a lot longer than one minute . I haven't tested it, but there's been games that I've been like come on, waiting on the game to end.  Seems like it takes forever sometimes.

yes very very izzzy