Blitz and Bullet are not chess

oh that's Kinda cool thanks

That rings true to me.

And you use simple things to choose... for example "this 3 move variation lets me control the d file with Rd1 at the end, so I choose it only for that reason."

I think another difference is that in classical you're usually (or should be) calculating more than one line... and then you choose the line that lead to the better outcome.

In blitz it's more about these little triggers like controlling the d file, improving a bishop, hurting their pawn structure, etc. And of course tactics. I threaten to win a pawn, I threaten to win a piece, etc. Most of the time in blitz you're not comparing two different lines, you're choosing something that sets off a sufficient number of triggers.

That's how I'd describe it anyway.

My correspondence rating is a wee bit higher than yours, and I rarely can see ten moves deep. In OTB play, I can point you quickly to the three games (ever—in a quarter century of active play) when I calculated nine moves ahead. In correspondence, I have sometimes, maybe often, played out a position on a chessboard, on the analysis board, or more often in my database twenty moves or longer, but I rarely take these seriously beyond about three moves because there are simply too many branches.

Not on this site.

op hasnt even played blitz or bullet on chess.com. he has only observed them.

i suggest chess.com restrict anyone under the rating of 2200 from voicing their opinion. we clearly dont understand chess.

Well yeah, that's what I meant.   I play out variations on the analysis board, 5-15 moves deep.   I sometimes take an hour on a particular move, if there are many branches.   My analysis usually proves to be correct too.   When my opponent plays one of my analyzed lines, it almost always works out as planned and I win.   When they come up with a different move, that I didn't consider, it's usually a blunder and again I win.   There's only one player so far that came up with an alternate move that I thought was better than my candidate moves.   He was an FM, so I don't feel too bad about that game.   When I only play 1-3 daily games at a time, I win a very high percentage of my games.   However, when I play 20 games at a time, my record is not that great.   I was forced to do that in the 2020 Daily Chess Championships, which is why my daily rating has dropped below 2000.   I think I could get it up to 2100-2300 if I only played 1-2 games a time though.

I played two classical games on LiChess yesterday. My local chess club just finished our annual Turkey quads online. I organized the event. The time control was 75+5, a little faster than what we would have played OTB, but still a classical time control. Some exceptional chess was played, too.

Again, people are confusing correspondence chess with daily chess.   Correspondence chess means playing games by mail (snail mail, where you actually write your move on a postcard or in a letter and mail it to someone with a stamp).   I'm not sure why they allow computers now in correspondence chess, but apparently they do (they didn't used to).   I guess there's no way to prevent it, so they made it legal.   Daily chess is chess.com's "equivalent" to correspondence chess.   Using a computer during the game is NOT allowed in daily chess and they will do fair play analysis on the games to make sure that nobody is cheating.  You can use an analysis board and opening books though (but I don't think you can use endgame books or tables).   

Lichess, as well as other sites, have classical and slow time control ratings. They just don't have them here on Chess.com for some bizarre reason. Longer games online were already becoming more popular before last year but with COVID-19 and a lot of events being moved online anyway now, long time controls online are more prevalent than they've ever been. For both simply rated online games and actual USCF/FIDE rated games, as well. Times are changing. 

Ok, I consider that to be a long rapid game.   Classical chess is 30/90, G/30 or 40/120, G/60, where I come from.   Such rated tournament games are played OTB and can last anywhere from 4-6 hours (maximum).   I believe that anything less than 4 hours (maximum) is still considered a rapid game.   Back in the day (1990's), we considered G/90's to be rapid games, even though they lasted up to 3 hours long.   It's possible that the definition of rapid and classic/classical have changed since the 1990's though, due to the internet and the trend towards faster games.

Game load makes a huge difference for me, too. I've played as many as 75 games at once across three sites. My play at such times is terrible. In contrast, when I had six games and my NM opponent had 70+, I scored a win and a draw in our match of two games.

Some time back, this site changed its name for correspondence chess from "Online" to "daily".

You need only think about it for a second to realize that mailing a postcard or entering a move on a server changes only the means of transmission. It is still the same game, especially when the time control is roughly the same.

Before changing the name, Erik created a poll. He then rejected the results. It's his site, so his right. It continues to produce confusion.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/debate-what-to-call-online-chess

You should review the rules. Rapid (Quick is the USCF term) is more than 10 minutes per player and less than 65. There is a chart on p. 11 of the current rule book.

Our norm here in River City is g120+5 sec. delay. Games are thus usually over at the four hour mark. This time control permits a five round event on a weekend.

Unless you have a really high rating and fast mind, blitz and bullet are not chess at all. I have watch several fast games here on chess.com and find that blitz and bullet are way more popular than standard game. In most blitz and bullet games, even high rating players make stupid moves so frequently, the only thing matters is time. Although some players are so good that they can make checkmate in 5 seconds, most players can not do that at all. So far as I see, chess is a game that need careful thinking and careful thinking takes time. Moving pieces just to see who can move faster is kind of childish, this make chess ugly. I suggest chess.com forbid those players whose rating lower than 2200 playing blitz or bullet.

Which rule book is that from?   USCF or chess.com?   I guess the rules have changed since the 90's then.   Maybe there should be a category in between rapid and classical, containing games with time controls of G/45 to G90.   It doesn't really make sense to call a G/60 a "rapid" game, which implies that it's fast.   By today's standards, G/60 is slow.   

I have an idea.... let the individual make his or her own decision on what they consider "real" chess. Do not we have here in the u.s. enough people trying to dictate our every thought and control our every action? My chess mind, my chess choice

You have a good point.   However, if you feel that way, then why are you commenting a thread that was obviously made to start a debate about whether bullet and blitz are real chess.   lol