hermanjohnell wrote:
Fast food is food, kind of, even if it cannot compare with a properly prepared and cooked meal, thus the term junk food. I consider bullet junk chess.
I almost cried at finally seeing good logic on a forum 🥲
Is Bullet Actually Chess?
Sort:
En_Croissants3 wrote:
SeaWing7000 wrote:
Bullet is just making random moves hoping you won't lose on time, then being up three queens but losing to half a second.
False. One minute time control is enough to have a pretty good game, as you will see when watching famous GM's.
Maybe to you it is, but not to all of us
Mainly memorised moves.
Jan 23, 2024
0
#144
Optimissed wrote:
Scemer wrote:
The classification of Bullet Chess as true Chess is subjective. Some argue its fast pace changes the game, while others believe the core rules and objectives remain, thus it's Chess. I want to hear your opinion; do you think Bullet is Chess, or not?
Not really. In a 5 minute game you can just about plan and execute a fairly complex and well-played game. Bullet chess, however, depends on moving fast and in order to accomplish that, you can make short moves. If you only move pieces and pawns one square, you get a considerable time advantage and should win, everything else being equal. This changes the game fundamentally and thus it isn't chess.
GMs are good at playing the game of chess and they often like to have fun or show off, playing bullet. Being good at playing the game doesn't give them the ability to decide if it's chess or not. That's a different ability.
If they don't get to decide, then why do you?
We all have our different opinions here, but if it isn't real chess, then what is it?
I get to decide because that's what I'm good at. 
Like the man says, it's junk chess.
Jan 23, 2024
0
#146
Optimissed wrote:
En_Croissants3 wrote:
SeaWing7000 wrote:
Bullet is just making random moves hoping you won't lose on time, then being up three queens but losing to half a second.
False. One minute time control is enough to have a pretty good game, as you will see when watching famous GM's.
Maybe to you it is, but not to all of us
Mainly memorised moves.
Ok, and?
Junk chess.
Jan 23, 2024
0
#148
Optimissed wrote:
I get to decide because that's what I'm good at.
So you are good at making decisions, doesn't matter to me. I'll just go and say that I am good at making them too, thus I am in the right.
Not super logical, but if you have something else to say, then i'm willing to listen 
Junk chess is junk chess. If you don't have time to think for a few seconds over an important move, it becomes completely a game of luck.
Jan 23, 2024
0
#150
Junk chess it is then, it's chess, but a bad sort of variation. I like it 
I can see I'm up against a professor of sceptical analysis.
Junk not-chess?
Jan 23, 2024
0
#154
Optimissed wrote:
Junk not-chess?
That implies it isn't chess, but it has the same principle ig
I played about four or five games of bullet chess maybe ten to 12 years ago in my previous account. Then I would have been about 60 and still had super-fast reactions. I think I won them all or all but one. I'd never played it before and I've never played it again. Back in the early 70s I was a very good table football player. On the Continent they call it Fussball or something. I was thought to be one of the best players in the UK and it's a game of co-ordination, physical skill and above all, speed of sight and speed of reaction. I daresay I could still play given a half hour warm-up but I'd never be that good because my reactions have slowed, especially in the last few years. I used to be a very good five-minute blitz player and could hold my own with strong players. Now I'm not so good, meaning that above all, reaction time being dominant takes away the skill factor. It's all about how fast your sight of the board is and how fast your reactions are, rather than their accuracy. If people can play memorised variations, they're at an advantage. Hence at bullet, many people use a strategy of playing non-book stuff and even quite crazy lines. That kind of strategy wouldn't even work at 5 minute blitz, because a good player is good enough to capitalise and win against dubious play. If it's a good strategy at bullet, that in itself indicates that it isn't chess but more about speed of moving the pieces, and building a nice little cocoon for your king and giving your pieces away if necessary.
Jan 23, 2024
0
#156
Optimissed wrote:
Bullet chess, however, depends on moving fast and in order to accomplish that, you can make short moves. If you only move pieces and pawns one square, you get a considerable time advantage and should win
Oh boy... some people really have no idea what bullet chess is about.
Have you ever even watched a bullet game played between two half decent players?
i think if it's anything under 30 sec it's not chess
Zunayed_781038 wrote:
@Scemer r u reading this comment?
No.
The classification of Bullet Chess as true Chess is subjective. Some argue its fast pace changes the game, while others believe the core rules and objectives remain, thus it's Chess. I want to hear your opinion; do you think Bullet is Chess, or not?
Not really. In a 5 minute game you can just about plan and execute a fairly complex and well-played game. Bullet chess, however, depends on moving fast and in order to accomplish that, you can make short moves. If you only move pieces and pawns one square, you get a considerable time advantage and should win, everything else being equal. This changes the game fundamentally and thus it isn't chess.
GMs are good at playing the game of chess and they often like to have fun or show off, playing bullet. Being good at playing the game doesn't give them the ability to decide if it's chess or not. That's a different ability.