My opinion on 1 minute games

Without disrespecting any of you, which I may sometimes unfortunately do in games do to anger, I would like to state my opinion on the endings of 1 minute games. In my rating range which is currently 1100 - 1300, I've run across alot of people who fail to have any strategy or planning whatsoever. Instead they rush their moves to conserve time and end up constantly "checking" me towards the end of games. I find this highly disrepectful If I have outthought them, of course time is always a variable in the game, but to be able to just do random checks that have no proper purpose but to win on time, I find that cheating. Of course I realize there is nothing to be done about that without changing the game. However I hope that perhaps a few people who do this realize this, you came here to play chess, and instead you are playing in a way chess was not meant to be played. My hope is that you decide to rething your strategy and such. Thank you if you read this. :)

I see his point, to be honest, but that's part of bullet games.  Consider this crazy game, which is pretty much just random moves by black.  I know they're random because I just randomly made them up :-p

@OP - The good blitz players, when they lose a minor piece, or are obviously losing, resign. Watch them sometime! Almost all their games (that I've seen) end by resignation.

Oh dear, another one of these threads.

If you can't prove a win, in the time controls you agreed to before starting, then you haven't outthought your opponent and don't deserve a win. Furthermore, allowing your allocated half of time, which you agreed to before starting, to elapse completely, is an infringement and is scored appropriately. There is no "sportsmanship" issue here.

Bullet is anti-chess. No thinking, just doing on instinct. It doesn't increase your skills when it comes to real chess. Even 10-10 is really too fast for most to learn. Only in 15min+ games do you think deeply enough to learn and improve. 1min for the first 6 to 10 moves should be enough for most, but middle games are about thought. 1min end games might be fun, as your general knowledge/strategy is being tested, but only if you review your game. Alas, we cant chose to play a game with 1min for the first 6moves or 1min when there is less than say 9points on the board. If you use bullet for training purposes, then fine, it's a tool, but as a real game?!?

Maybe people with higher rankings feel differently, but in the real world I use to play ~1700, for real games (3h+). So I think my opinion is valid up to that level.

All chess games are timed. The question is whether the time control is set so low as to turn chess players, in the words of WGM Irina Krush, into "clock-punching monkeys."

Winning on time in a game that permits players enough time to think is perfectly legitimate. I don't know anyone who's claimed otherwise

This guy is really a sore loser.

By the way, for your info, 1 minute games are not chess.

But I guess you tried all the other time controls, and never won a game!

Even Nakmura told before bullet is not chess. For example in Nakamura's book where he annotates,he give question mark on a move that wins the queen because it took the opponent 4 seconds to see it. In one of the annotation the author gives 29..Rb6 a !, courageously ignoring white mate threat in 1..

Yes..

Hey, that Hedgehog is really cool.  And that bathroom looks quite extravagant for Russia.

You must either be one of Putin's boys or in the Russian mafia...

You out thought your opponent in 1 minute chess?  Well thats your problem right there.

The objection, I think, isn't so much to bullet chess as it is to people claiming it should be taken seriously

Well that is why a checkmate in bullet chess is worth about four times the rating increase as a win on time.  Don't worry, its all handicapped in the rating nexus.

Bullet chess is a joke, or, to use a more accurate descriptor, bullsh**. If people who liked bullet chess didn't try to compare it to real chess, I doubt there'd be an issue. It's the bullet players' insistence on claiming bullet is like real chess that is obnoxious. You're just, in WGM Irina Krush's words, "clock-punching monkeys." If you play it over the Internet, you're mouse-clicking monkeys

Bullet is good for getting wins on time and games where the Parham seems to look good when it's actually bad in longer time control. It's not like longer games. Bullet is about making really quick moves.

I agree with chesspooljuly13

The players with 2000+ ratings are fun to watch in 1|0.  They seem to never use premoves.

I saw all of the first time control for the recent "Blitz Death Match", and most of the second time control. I did not see the 3rd time control.

However, those 1/0 games with masters are almost all wins on time.