Blitz and Bullet are not chess

to jambyvedar

but that isn't the issue. read the original post i replied to. it isn't relevant if some gm's are better at bullet than others, nor does it matter that occasionally gm's lose at bullet. the issue is whether good players are, by and large, worse at bullet than bad players. please try to focus in your next reply.

nakamura mentioned bullet is not chess.

we can infer that he meant bullet is not chess strategy. but it is still the same pieces, so still chess.

you are adding words nakamura never told. what he only told is that bullet is not chess.

Blitz and bullet are absolutely not real chess

what the hell dude. I did not add words. I said that we can INFER. 

don't just make such a dumb statement. prove it.

the infer thing  is just another way to play around with it. the fact that nakamura(one of the world's best player) thinks bullet as not chess holds more value than our opinion. but i do think that blitz is still chess. but not bullet.

Were not saying it isn't chess. Were saying it's not serious chess, and people shouldn't be judged on their bullet ratings at all.

Problem solving and composing? It's all chess

Is dice chess chess?

U should read some of the chess variants. Some are freaking unbelievably cool. I have a page stating 5 of my favorite chess varaints.

Suicide, and Escalation are good fun for kids. What others?

Perhaps bullet chess trains a different area or segment of chess play. Rapid and standard chess are like doing homework at home; bullet chess is like taking a 2-hour examination paper consisting of difficult questions.

I trained up chess by bullet and blitz for this reason (but unfortunately 1|0 bullet has been so addictive for me that I have become a permanent 1|0 bullet player). In rapid games I will use the same methods to do an initial scanning of moves and then work more concrete lines from there.

I usually play 1|0 and 2|1 online (a tiny fraction of longer time controls as well) and longer/untimed games over the board.

Blitz and bullet chess are not variants of chess, they are chess, played fast. The rules are the same, and the best players in blitz and bullet are generally the same as the best players in standard time controls. 

A cricket match played at faster time controls is still cricket. A tennis match played with fewer sets is still tennis. The basic elements of the game are not changed, the players are just given less time to make a decision. 

When the shot clock was added to basketball, it didn't become a "variant" of basketball. In fact, the innovation has made basketball far more interesting!

I cannot play bullet and prefer longer time limits. But that is my failing--bullet and blitz are legitament forms of chess. 

Admire those who can play bullet and blitz well.

The best tennis players are not even professional level table tennis players. Those are clearly two different sports.

The best chess player is the best chess player at three different time controls, and the top 100 chess players are almost all in the top 100 in rapid and blitz time controls too. Magnus has shown that the difference between bullet chess and standard chess is that the win-loss rate may be different, but the better chess player generally still wins the majority of games regardless of time control.

Every world champion except Botvinnik, and every elite player today excels at blitz.