"Playing bullet itself shows disrespect for the game."
That is not the point. The problem is when someone choosing to play bullet says he doesn't like it and doesn't stop playing it.
And then gets on a high horse because he or she has not embraced the full range of strategies necessary for continued success.
To my opinion, playing bullet is just like play standard except it's faster and mostly for good players and bullet lovers.
I remember an OTB game of B+2P vs R when my opponent and I were both under two minutes plus a five second delay. I had the rook, so was playing for a draw. I played on the increment and his clock moved closer to zero as he sought the best moves. He was making progress, but then stepped into a checkmate in one.
Respect for the game did not entice me to eschew victory. I checkmated his King. Had his clock run out, I would have claimed the win. Chess is a fight. I blew an opening advantage. He missed a shot in the middle game, then I squandered an endgame advantage. In the end, the better player won.
IN bullet, yes, but only bullet.
"Playing bullet itself shows disrespect for the game."
That is not the point. The problem is when someone choosing to play bullet says he doesn't like it and doesn't stop playing it.
That was what I was trying to say. There is no point complaining about non-chess tricks in bullet because bullet has very little to do with chess.
I remember an OTB game of B+2P vs R when my opponent and I were both under two minutes plus a five second delay. I had the rook, so was playing for a draw. I played on the increment and his clock moved closer to zero as he sought the best moves. He was making progress, but then stepped into a checkmate in one.
Respect for the game did not entice me to eschew victory. I checkmated his King. Had his clock run out, I would have claimed the win. Chess is a fight. I blew an opening advantage. He missed a shot in the middle game, then I squandered an endgame advantage. In the end, the better player won.
In chess the better player doesn't always win.
I agree. It was true in this case, however.
In any given game, the better player might lose. Over a series of games, the better player will be lucky more often. Luck, Benjamin Franklin wisely observed, is when preparation meets opportunity.
The only luck in chess comes from your opponent having a bad or good day which is luck for you, but for them it isn't luck of any sort so it isn't true luck at all. There is no true luck in chess, it's not like poker or some other game/sport where randomness or probability gets involved.
Like I said, there is luck in your opponen having a bad or good day. What the cause of his bad or good day is is irrelevant, but most people just throw luck into the equation because they are too lazy to find other explanationsfor things, it's easy just to claim they were unlucky or lucky.
But since the subject of the thread is bullet chess I don't think there are many players who sit for hours straight playing bullet. If they do then it isn't bad luck if they lose, it's because they are stupid!
Isn't bad etiquette a bullet chess skill, with its own elo and all that jazz?
Oh and I forgot another whine the whiners cry-"Bullet isn't chess". what a crock! What is it then? Scabble?? Because I move faster than you or I sac my rooks with 2 seconds left or I violate opening principals, that means we're not playing chess? And luck? Luck is when preparation meets opportunity. If you make a stupid move because you're under time pressure, and I capitalize on it, how is that luck? What a bunch of chess snob babies.
Chess is anything that follows the rules of chess. If we're putting a quality constraint on what counts as chess then most of us don't play chess since the likes of Hikaru Nakamura and Maxime Vachier-Lagrave play better moves in bullet chess than most of us do in long chess. So basically you are saying chess is not for recreational players, just for the top 1% whose moves meet a quality threshold.
There's a reason chess is split into different-named time controls - it's all chess, but the different names allow them to be separated out for rating purposes and for people to play the speed they want.
Basketball that ends in a minute seems like a great idea.
I still play turtlechess because I don't have the experience to get involved with bullet or blitz yet. And let's face it: the folks who are good at bullet and/or blitz are usually those who play about as many f2f games as they do online and they've been playing chess since they were 3 or something insane like that, lol. I'm still a noob and I know it, clap your hands. But if I was one of those folks who played incessant chess, bullet or blitz would appeal because I would already be so familiar with the patterns the game tends to play out in that playing someone turtlechess-style would drive me insane. At some point, I would guess that the game becomes something like competitive doodling until a really interesting OP comes along...?...or I had a particular pattern of play I wanted to work out with someone.
To get back to an earlier issue, I don't believe there is a comparison between chess and poker. In poker -- or for that matter, in almost any card game -- one does not play the hand one is dealt. You play your opponent. There is always at least one card, just one, in any casino or competitive card game that remains hidden from the opposing player(s); so it remains for you to use your own skills at gamesmanship, at bluffing, to run the bid up high enough to bust your OP(s) without busting yourself.
This is not so in chess. While there is a certain amount of gamesmanship played OTB (diversions, feints, bluffs, etc.), the emphasis is less on playing one's OP than it is on developing one's own strategy and seeing it through. You play your pieces. Everything's there for your OP to see...or ignore, as the case may be. There's no guessing. You can get in Big Trouble for counting cards in a casino; it is, however, expected -- encouraged! -- that one will count his or her pieces OTB.
Basketball that ends in a minute seems like a great idea.
Sounds great to me, lol! 
Fabbi is known for being best when having more time. That is not the case for Naka, MVL and Carlsen. Bullett is indeed both chess and time combined. If I try to win solely on time vs Naka he would crush me easily.
Will you ever open a book and find that someone is trying to teach you strategy from bullet chess games?
Yep. See https://books.google.com/books?id=uKdmPgAACAAJ
Yesterday morning I missed three of the first four tactics problems that I attempted for no other reason than that I had too much hot sauce on my chile relleno the night before.
Yeah. It shows disrespect for the idea of the "noble game". It shows that you really do not care much for the game of chess part of it.
Doesn't bullet itself show disrespect for the game.
Same as slapping together a thanksgiving dinner in five minutes shows disrespect for the turkey and the people who have to eat it.
The poor bird's life sacrificed just so a bunch of disrespected eaters probably get sick from raw poultry.
Chess is anything that follows the rules of chess. If we're putting a quality constraint on what counts as chess then most of us don't play chess since the likes of Hikaru Nakamura and Maxime Vachier-Lagrave play better moves in bullet chess than most of us do in long chess. So basically you are saying chess is not for recreational players, just for the top 1% whose moves meet a quality threshold.
There's a reason chess is split into different-named time controls - it's all chess, but the different names allow them to be separated out for rating purposes and for people to play the speed they want.
Basketball that ends in a minute seems like a great idea.
You totally miss the point.It's not about achieving quality.It's about trying to achieve quality.Nothing in life has any value if you don't try to achieve quality.
Bullet chess is not chess and even FIDE(the Word Chess Federation) accepts that.Why there is no official bullet chess World Championship?And why there are ratings for chess , rapid chess and blitz?If they were the same then the rating would be one and not 3.Even FIDE accepts that they are 3 different "sports" or "games" or anything you like to call them.And of course only the long time controls is accepted by all as the real chess. Otherwise there would be no long time control games.What's the reason to have games that last 4-6 hours when you can have games that last 10 minutes.You could have a World Champion in a day.Not even rapid chess or blitz are chess.They are variants mostly for fun and get the people that don't understand much of real chess get excited by seeing the top players blunder pieces.It's totally obvious that the less the time the more the better player is affected.Recent example.Deathmatch in chess.com yesterday, Caruana against Hess.Caruana won easily the 5/2 games , not so easy the 3/2 games and Hess won easily the 1/1 games.If there was even longer time control , Hess wouldn't have the slightest chance,but the more reduced the thinking time the more the gap was reduced.
You're just making the same point as me, but claiming it as an argument against what I say!
I said there are different ratings for the different types of chess and the fact hat they are different ratings for is a fairly clear indication that they are all chess, just different time controls requiring different skills.
Over the board chess is one type of chess. Over the boardbullet chess is a waste of space, but we live in an online era now where bullet chess is perfectly viable. FIDE are not relevant to online chess. They haven't quite managed to spread their grubby mits that far yet!
Good bullet chess players still aim to play good moves just as in normal chess, just that the amount of depth of thought into those moves is less.
No-one is trying to claim that the world championship should be played in bullet chess. I hapily sit an watch 6 hours of coverage every day for 2 weeks when the US chess championships are on or the Sinquefield Cup. Do I want to sit and play one game of chess for 6 hours myself though? No, of course not. I have a full time job and other things to do thn concentrate for 6 hours on one game of chess that is basically meaningless. I can do other things at the same time as watching and I can see 6 or 8 games going on at the same time.
The game of chess isn't a baby. It doesn't need respect. If the pieces are set up the same way on the board and two people play each other then it's chess and it is better than people not playing chess.
Heh. I also agree that Carlsen is a top-notch bullet player. All I meant is that if he only had 1-2 secs (putting a spin on the OP's scenario) anyone would use the same strategy despite the WC's renowned resilience. Basically yeah, a clock advantage is an advantage. It should be nursed like a passed pawn.
Playing OTB games especially, don't tell me it isn't.
"Playing bullet itself shows disrespect for the game."
That is not the point. The problem is when someone choosing to play bullet says he doesn't like it and doesn't stop playing it.