Blitz and Bullet are not chess

my bullet rating, 3 min and 5 min ratings, not to mention longer time controls, are in roughly the same ballparks, so the bullet rating is as reliable as the others.

No they are not, because losing an easily won position on time cause we both have 2 seconds left doesn't reflect your ability. I have played like 190 blitz games and my ratings in the 1500s, and Ive played over 300 bullet games, and my ratings in the 1100s. No way is that the same ballpark. Good players are probably worse at bullet because they calculate further ahead, and calculate more complex tactics, whereas bullet players will just make random moves trying to flag his opponent when he's losing.

incorrect. My bullet rating on many sites are about the same as other variants. So i have no idea what you are talking about 

Good for you. Not everyone can play that fast. People need time to calculate. Explain the 400 point difference in my blitz and bullet rating then.

good players are probably worse at bullet, eh. if only magnus carlsen and hikaru nakamura, probably the top 2 bullet players, could play chess. just because there is a variance in your rating doesn't mean the same is true of everybody else.

Well most grandmasters can calculate faster than the average player, not just further. Magnus is finally higher than Nakamura in blitz. Was wondering where he was.

well said

well, carlsen is a chess genius. relative to players there are top players that are actually worse at bullet. caruana and so are way better at classical or rapid chess than bullet. nakamura is better at bullet than classical chess.

 i think you added words that nakamura never mentioned. what he clearly says bullet is not chess.

to jambyvedar:

the post i was replying to asserted that good players are worse at bullet. this is not true. the top players who are worse than magnus and naka at bullet (this would be all the top players, since they are the best at it) are still far, far better than average players. 

My point is that a player's ability should be judged on blitz and rapid. Bullet doesn't reflect one's ability. A bad bullet rating is normal, and a very high bullet rating might just indicate that u are better at flagging your opponents and got lucky when your opponent missed all of your blunders cause he had 5 seconds left lol.

I'm saying general chess ability is reflected when u have time to calculate, and can implement your calculation abilities. Bullet doesn't really give you time to show your ability on the board.

it's easier to defeat a sleepy and drunk gm at classical, too.

makes as much sense as the opposite. the top bullet players are pretty much all gm's and im's. bullet gives them enough time to implement their abilities. some people can't calculate quickly, some can, but you don't see people who just spam moves at the top of any kind of chess.

Agreed. U can't even compare the 2.

what is the point behind the statement?

Favourite quote: "1-minute is a variant of chess for people like Naka. For the rest of us its a video game."

1. Checkers has a bunch of the same piece

2. You only need half the board to play it on

3. Checkers has already been proven to be a draw with perfect play.

 i disagree. there are gms that are worse in bullet or blitz. i already gave you examples of these players. yeah they are still better than average players but relative to their fellow gms they are many gms that are worse in bullet or blitz. i have seen at lichess and chess.com many unrated players beating a GM in bullet or blitz. But these unrated players don't have a chance against these GM in classical or rapid.

what are you trying to prove? none of these statements proves that Bullet/Blitz are not chess. in fact, they don't even support it!