I think Speed Chess is garbage.

It is a skill like any other.  Different from chess at classical time controls but a skill nonetheless.

Fischer was encouraged by one of his early mentors to play five minute chess.

If you want to develop as a bullet player play plenty of bullet.  If you want to develop as a classical time control player play plenty of classical time control chess.

I would back one or two of the bullet players here against Carlsen.  At bullet chess.

Speed chess can be a lot of fun. It does have value since it is a test ground for positional ideas, openings and it hones one's skill at tactics. No one is forced to play it, to each his own. At the end of the day it is what it is!

IMO 3m + 3s is legit, hard 3m is garbage

but hard 3 is the only online chess that's not guaranteed to just be playing an engine most of the time, so...

     The faster the time control, the less time for finding good moves. The less good moves found, the poorer the overall quality of the games. NOBODY claims that blitz games produce their best chess. Blitz may not be garbage, and many people find it to be fun, but it is inferior to classical chess. Sure, strong GMs can play higher-quality chess at quick speeds, but they play top-quality chess all the time and their classical games are better than their speed games--notice how blitz games never appear in anyone's collections of their best games.

I cannot speak about bullet chess because I never played it. But other speeds of chess are really quite useful.

Why? because they test an important aspect of chess strength: speed of board sight. The quicker one sees a move or idea, the higher the strength. I can calculate a typical smothered mate or I can instantly see the pattern. Speed helps one see many ideas and gives one time to evaluate the ideas. Finally, quick chess shows all the flaws in one chess. For example, if I lose a quick game to a discovered attack or to an undefending idea, I can blame it on the idea that I did not have enough time to see it or , I can recognize that I have a problem seeing discovered attacks and undefend my pieces too much. The more one practices with people around one's level, the easier it gets to play. I suspect the same holds for bullet chess.

What should be obvious to all is what I stated above that I never played bullet chess and that I suspect that it useful in the same way that speed is useful. Board sight is at least as important as tactical or strategical understanding

The biggest clue for people to look for when they read these comments comes from people who claim to know everything(which they don't) and from people whose only purpose in life is to insult people they know nothing about.

I come on here to play with friends, and rarely play for rating points, also to advise people of things I have learned about chess.  I pity those who feel that they have to insult people.  This only shows a person's true character.  

Yes bullet is garbage Most of the lower rated bullet players just play random moves in order to win by time 

Speed chess measures your proficiency at making blunders faster than your opponent can.

Rapid is speed chess and is the slowest chess you can play here.

Also you play tons of bullet and blitz.

I used to play blitz and that was trash, I was always loosing by time, now I prefer to play either 15|10 or 45|45 and my skills are being improved. I've started to have fun and enjoy the game. Blitz/bullet is uninteresting trash where only your speed matters, how you memorized patterns, but not how you think.

Remember Hikaru being the highest-rated fast chess player, but he loses very often at standart tournaments and many chess players stronger than him extist.

u are right but pls join this group https://www.chess.com/club/chess-10001

 Blitz is fine if you do not want to play strong chess,

I think speed chess revises your openings. You also start calculating faster

Bullet/Blitz and rapid/classical are simply emphasising opposite ends of the thinking spectrum. Neither one is "better" or "worse. The faster the time control, the more emphasis is put on pattern recognition, and the structure of your initial observations. The slower the time control, the more emphasis is put on problem solving, how well one improves their understanding of the position they face over time, via comparing lines, evaluating things with more detail etc. 

Sure, chess looks very different when you pick the "extreme" time formats and put them side by side, say by comparing bullet to correspondence. In correspondence you obviously have to be very precise, but you don't have to arrive at your candidate moves with anywhere near the same structure, one can "go round the houses" a lot more, so to speak.

In bullet, one has to appreciate how these strong players consider logical and safe moves so quickly imo, even if what they play would certainly not always work in a slow game.