Blitz and Bullet are not chess

How much of a blitz game are you really able to follow?

I think where we disagree is on this statement: Blitz and bullet chess lead to lower quality chess games. I think they do; you apparently disagree.

To each his own. Play/watch blitz to your heart's content and I'll play chess with classical time controls or correspondence chess to my heart's content.

But IF you believe blitz doesn't lead to weaker chess due to players not having enough time to find the best moves, try this experiment: Take two GMs of equal or near equal rating and have one play with a time control of 5 minutes for the game, and the other play with a time control of 40 moves in two hours and an additional hour to finish the game. See who wins

Finally; was worried you fell asleep lol.

In order...

Yes, it is important to the discussion unless your enjoyment in watching blitz is derived by seeing two people push wooden pieces and punch clocks. How much someone can follow blitz as it's being played is not only relevant to the discussion, it's essential!

No, that's not enough complexity when most games last from 35 to 60 moves. Even players in tournaments with classical time controls will "blitz out" the first 5-10 moves depending on how well they know the opening. The real complexity comes in the middle game, late middle game and most endgames. That's precisely when having more time leads to better moves and a better chess game with fewer errors.

I'm not arguing that bullet or blitz chess games are less complex - if you froze a bullet or blitz game and did the same with a classical game they might look the same - to a point and if the observing person isn't a GM. What I am saying is that bullet/blitz players are Less Likely to find the best moves in complex positions, which leads to a lower quality chess game.

Chess with classical time controls = NBA

Bullet chess = Nerf basketball

Chess with classical time controls = NFL

Bullet chess = Sandlot football

Chess with classical time controls = NASCAR

Bullet chess = Drag racing

The best advocates of bullet chess and blitz chess have is the game follows the same rules.

Never mind the quality.

It's like saying a rotten apple and a freshly-picked apple are the same because they're both apples.

By that logic none of your games are chess because they are woeful in comparison to master games.

Interesting rejoinder, but I'm comparing the quality of a game two players of any strength can achieve under classical time controls with the quality those same two players can achieve in bullet chess. Hence, your rejoinder, while clever misses the mark. An excellent try, though!

The previous comment asking an amateur to play a GM in bullet is equally flawed.

The true test is to pit one GM against another GM of equal or near equal rating and give one GM a single minute for the game while the other gets 2 hours for 40 moves and an additional hour to finish the game. The two players are of comparable skill so should have a relatively close match. But they won't. The GM who's permitted to think will win because the quality of his playing will be much better due to having more time to think

Quality in comparison to your long games is irrelevant.

Why would the same moves be considered chess if played by a weak player, but not a strong player? It's the same game.

There is no time limit defined for it to be considered chess.

I assume you're happy with games where the players have 2 hours for the first 40 moves. Why is that OK when players can't analyse in the same depth as they could in correspondence chess?

Don't confuse your personal preference for anything else.

Exactly. Missing good moves and tactics is why bullet chess is a waste of time, in my opinion:)

For starters, correspondence chess permits the use of databases and books, as well as moving the pieces around in between moves, so comparing classical chess to correspondence chess is like comparing apples to oranges. Yes, a correspondence chess player has more time to think but he or she also has access to study aides not available to someone who plays a tournament game with classical time controls.

If you can't see that the quality of a chess game in bullet chess is worse than the quality of a chess game under classical time controls - with the same two people playing - then I see no point in continuing to argue that 2+2=4 (metaphor!)

Bullet is only good to sharpen the tactics and to steal opening ideas.... and to pat the ego on the back, building yourself up by flagging others.  It is not a total waste of time, but it can help you to be more familiar with the opening and with managing the clock.

Nobody has argued that, you're arguing a strawman, but the quality of moves has no relevance to whether the game should be considered chess.

It is chess, that's a fact, and there's no logic in arguing against it.

That's a good way to see it:)

Wonder why some GMs give time-odds to non-GMs? Because they know having time to think is valuable in improving their opponent's quality of play.

The refusal of some to accept this simple and blatantly obvious fact leads me to the conclusion that they're trolling.

Then you admit that the quality of bullet games is weaker than the quality of games played under a classical time control? Finally! Now I can go to bed lol

Not one person has refused to accept that, enjoy debating your strawman.

Here's a 25-page exam. Student A gets 2 hours to take it; Student B gets 10 minutes. Both had the same grade going into the exam. Who will do better?

You're an idiot, plain and simple.

Whatever lol. Seems like that was the debate for many posts. No one that I know of was saying bullet and blitz didn't follow the same rules; my argument was that the quality of bullet and blitz games was weaker. But whatever floats your boat. Glad we finally agree!

Insults! The refuge of the vanquished! You know you've won an argument when your opponent is reduced to name calling. I accept your resignation lol

You're arguing a position that nobody has taken.

Not one person has said a player makes the same quality of moves in a bullet game as they would in standard time controls. How can you possibly have won any argument?

The argument is whether blitz and bullet are chess. You thought not. They are. That's a fact. So you were wrong.