My opinion on 1 minute games

rotflmao. You guys will do anything to avoid the issue. Try this one on for size - Comparing bullet chess to chess played under classical time controls is like comparing the most poorly-manufactured car with the most well-manufactured car.

LOL

Kinda like comparing a Lincoln to a Cadillac?  My friend, I must quote to you some misguided "advice" from the film Donnie Brasco (1997).

Fact is, bullet chess hurts my index finger more than the standard time. Click click click click. But its entertaining.

This thread, obviously is sorted out nobody really cares about my opinion, however to those of you who took the time to post on here, you got my message wrong. What i mean is if I have a full army wtih 2 seconds left, same with my opponent, and he has just a rook, a majority of times the opponent will give me a check and me, unable to predict my opponents move as that is insanely hard to do and requires an uncomprehendable amount of luck, will run out of time do to this. This is waht my topic was discussing so don't go around commenting that im an idiot.

Nobody is saying your an idot kimosavhe.

If you care to reread the posts.

Skeet shooting requires skill - a lot more skill than bullet. It'd be like someone coming up with a variant of skeet shooting that required the shooters to first hit a target and then sending 500 targets into the air at once and seeing who could hit the most, shooting simultaneously, before they fell to the ground. And if one skeet shooter still had ammunition in his weapon after the last target hit the ground, he'd be declared the loser. It's exactly the sort of mindless, aimless and frenzied aspects of this "variant" that would be denigrated by real skeet shooters.

No one called bullet players or bullet itself stupid. All I have said is it's bullsh** and a waste of time. I don't think they're synonyms.

But, you'll be happy to hear, I'm done discussing it.

Jamesbh, in situations like that, it's a game of guessing your opponent's check. Making a king move makes the most sense, no?

Your analogies stink.

Just cause you can't refute them doesn't mean they stink. In fact, it means the opposite lol

Let's try to simplify this for you, Joey bag of donuts:

Trying to shoot as many targets as you can when 500 are launched into the air is mindless, aimless, contains a great degree of luck and is pretty useless as a method of getting better at real skeet shooting.

Hmmmmmmmmmm.....Mindless. Aimless. Pointless. Contains a great degree of luck. Useless in trying to improve in real skeet shooting.

Now let's look at bullet...Mindless. Aimless. Pointless. Contains a great degree of luck. Useless in trying to improve in real chess.

I see a parallel.

My logic > Joey bag of donut's ability to understand

Here's an interesting observation...Why don't you bullet folks go back to discussing how to get better at bullet instead of allowing yourselves to be dragged off topic? Is it because you know bullet's mostly luck, cheap shots and mindless/pointless moving of the pieces and there's therefore no reason to discuss how to improve?

You can make any legal move in chess you want -- want to move back and forth? Go ahead! You happen to play a time control where there is quite a bit of merit to that strategy -- if you get a lot of time victories this way, you get a lot of victories.

If you want there to be a lower likelihood of moving back and forth being a good strategy, then you should probably be playing a different time control.

The time control is part of what takes your understanding of chess, and tells you how to apply it and shape it into a game winning machine. That means you have to mix your theoretical understanding with practical techniques, and that includes moving back and forth.

 Although there is absolutely nothing unethical about bullet strategy, I completely disagree with those who have said that this is a preferred way of learning about the game. With almost no exception, the only good moves you can make quickly are either moves which contain ideas you have seen before, or moves you have seen before.

People use "bullet" interchangably with 1 0, when in reality bullet includes the more correspondence-like control of 1 2.

And I disagree with the idea that there's zero time to think. It's not how I play, and I have over 8,000 bullet wins here on chess.com. So I must be doing something right.

Big D Clark, you can only know if a tactic will work in a short amount of time if you have had a lot of prior experience with that tactic. The tactics that I see quickly in a bullet game are the ones that I have previously looked and thought about for weeks.

Nonetheless, there are definitely lots of chess-skill aspects about bullet, yet I think it emphasizes certain chess skills more and others less, compared to other time controls. For instance, consistency is important in bullet, probably more so than finding the precise plan (in bullet, a good plan is typically sufficient).

Joey bag of donuts said: "...because as with everything else in your life, you have never tried to be good at it.  You have never tried to compete at it or worked hard to understand it.  You fail at everything because of your attitude that everything you fail it is unworthy of your attention."

More projection from Joey. Unloading his perceptions of himself onto a complete stranger to alleviate his lack of self esteem and sense of inadequacy and worthlessness.

I told you before, Joey - don't be so hard on yourself!

You learn so much about someone by the way they criticize complete strangers. It's been a real education getting to know you, Joey lol

Oh, sorry.  Your analogies smell like roses.

I agree, it is fun.