Ah, I see you've rejoined our game. King to what square? You're in check, there! Try again!
So, to sum up, your argument is:
"Bullet and blitz are chess because they follow the same rules as classical chess."
You're brilliant lol. Only problem is, that wasn't what was being debated. Talk about setting up a strawman lol.
What was being debated was whether bullet and blitz represent chess as it was meant to be played, and you've already tossed that branch into the fire. Not that I blame you lol
If quality - which seems to be the main argument in calling bullet not-chess - is the detemination between what is and what isn't chess, I've never played a game of chess in my life. That masters can play higher quality bullet (as the original posting asserts) makes no sense as an argument, since compared to masters, my classical games are nonsense too. Rules do define the game, quality doesn't.
Ah, I see you've rejoined our game. King to what square? You're in check, there! Try again!
So, to sum up, your argument is:
"Bullet and blitz are chess because they follow the same rules as classical chess."
You're brilliant lol. Only problem is, that wasn't what was being debated. Talk about setting up a strawman lol.
What was being debated was whether bullet and blitz represent chess as it was meant to be played, and you've already tossed that branch into the fire. Not that I blame you lol
Your moves therefore don't represent chess as it was meant to be played.
You obviously haven't followed the advancement of lol, Joey. Yes, the acronym stands for "laugh out loud," but it's frequently used simply to denote a smile.
Kind of like bullet chess follows the same rules as classical chess but isn't how chess was meant to be played - I know this analogy is a tough one, Joey. Take a nap and eat some granola bars before responding. I want you at your best!
Ah, I see your King found a safe square. Good for you!
You're making the same mistake you made 100 posts ago. You're trying to compare the chess played by an amateur with the chess played by a grandmaster. I'm referring to the best play on an individual basis.
Strap on your thinking cap for this one: John Smith is an amateur chess player. He plays both bullet chess and classical chess. His moves in classical chess represent how chess was meant to be played according to his ability - he is reaching the highest level of chess he can attain at the present moment according to his ability.
His bullet chess is full of blunders. That is not John's highest ideal or his best quality chess.
Comprende? Good! You get a cookie!
No cookie for Joey, though. He's still trying to figure all this out. I may have to keep you after class, Joey, or assign you to a tutor.
You're delusional and borderline insane.
Ah, I see your King found a safe square. Good for you!
You're making the same mistake you made 100 posts ago. You're trying to compare the chess played by an amateur with the chess played by a grandmaster. I'm referring to the best play on an individual basis.
And you're still refusing to answer the question of a cut off point because it invalidates your argument. Anyway I'm done, enjoy whatever victory you're assigning to yourself.
Strap on your thinking cap for this one: John Smith is an amateur chess player. He plays both bullet chess and classical chess. His moves in classical chess represent how chess was meant to be played according to his ability - he is reaching the highest level of chess he can attain at the present moment according to his ability.
That's not true. Give him another 2 hours and he'll play better moves again.
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.
I really don't see the original poster's intent in the least to be that Bullet and Blitz do not represent the original intentions of how chess was meant to play. I'm not even sure chess was ever meant to be played in any certain way. I can't seem to follow that rationale, though I've honestly tried to understand it.
More insults! Hahahahaha. You're just proving your argument's busted; just like your position in our chess game. Glad you finally turned down your King. Well played. Can't win 'em all lol
Good grief, batgirl. Are you turning into a troll like Joey and Scott? The poster's original intent in starting this thread is right in front of you!
"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."
It's all right there! The original poster never was trying to argue that bullet and blitz aren't chess because they don't follow the same rules as classical chess, which is what the pro-bullet folks were reduced to arguing before they became trolls. He was saying that bullet and blitz makes chess ugly because it relies on who can move pieces the fastest and not on out-thinking their opponent.
I may have to send you to a tutor with Joey!
I see Joey's back with the insults. Instead of sending you to a tutor, I'm going to have to send you to the principal's office! And no cookie for you!
Ok, you're wrong!
BTW, your posts reveal a massive amount of projection. Know what that means? Didn't think so lol. Yet another lesson for the tutor to teach you. I'm going to have to pay her overtime!
'pro-bullet folks' - you might want to check my profile.
So you think every player of the same ability thinks at the same speed?
I think any current or future posts about the correlation between Chess players and Intelligence should be directed to this thread for their answers, it is threads like these and some of the posts in it which could spoil Chess for me if i didnt know better how Internet forums work.
Chess is 64 squares and 32 pieces and thats it.
Whether you play against yourself, a computer, an opponent, through the mail, take 1 minute or 10 years to play a game whatever the controls or environment it is Chess.
Peace
Five degrees in psychology! Plus, I'm the head psychologist at the most prestigious department of psychology at the most prestigious university in the country! No, make that the world!
Anyone can invent anything about themselves on the Internet, Joey. The rubber meets the road based on the quality of your argument. And since your argument has mostly consisted of childish insults, I'd wager you're seeing a psychologist instead. Keep posting, though. I love the entertainment lol
Must add that I love how you're trying to divert attention away from your failed argument re: bullet and blitz. But that distraction technique is a little primitive, the kind a freshman in Pysch 101 might try.
No one - and I mean no one - can refute the following statement:
"The quality of a chess game deteriorates in bullet and blitz because the players don't have enough time to think."
That was the point the original poster was making, and his point stands.
You want to say bullet and blitz are chess because they follow the same rules and take place on a board with 64 squares and 32 pieces? Fine. Go ahead. No one's arguing that point.
The point under contention is whether chess as it was meant to be played - with careful consideration, deep thought and an attempt to find the best possible move in every given position - is possible in bullet and blitz.
The answer is, it's not.
To argue otherwise reveals an ignorant or willfully stubborn (and hence childish) mind.
It's been great forum posters.
No point in trying to prove 2+2=4 anymore. Some people just won't see the truth even if it's right in front of their face.
Adios, amigos!!!!
It's all right there! The original poster never was trying to argue that bullet and blitz aren't chess because they don't follow the same rules as classical chess. . .
Precisely. He was arguing the opposite, that [even though they do, in fact, follow the same rules], "unless you have a really high rating and fast mind, blitz and bullet are not chess at all." There seems to be no quibbling in his intent. But where is it written that a move must make sense? In fact most games, even bullet games, are not merely mindless moving of pieces. But the slider that moves toward speed, moves away from quality, and as games such as bullet, or even blitz (in which even players of my limited skill can produce decent games, very recognizable in most folk's definition of chess) become less and less in quality as the slider moves further toward speed (the end of the game usually). This is true in games of master and patzers both.
"The quality of a chess game deteriorates in bullet and blitz because the players don't have enough time to think."
That was the point the original poster was making, and his point stands.
That was never his point. That's a mitigation of his point. That might be your point or someone elses pointor some evolution in point-life, but it's not the OP's point as he stated it.
lol means smile where I come from, Joey.
And if you bothered to read through all the posts you'd realize whose arguments prevailed.
No use rehashing everything. It's all there in black and white for anyone to see and people can form their own opinions about whether bullet chess is chess as it was meant to be played.
Have a great night, Joey