there nothing wrong with being better at really fast paced chess. it just shows that your really good at it becuase u play on ur phone or somehting. i have seen many accounts that have a rapid and blitz rating of like 1000-1100 but their bullet is like somewhere around 1600-1700. usually these account play 30 sec chess or lower. however if you where to play these accounts in 1 min or 2|1 they would struggle alot more becasue it is no just about speed and premove mind games or that kind of stuff. if it were me i would not really be prould of being good at ultrabullet becuase it isnt really your "true" bullet rating. like for instance me, i am 1700 bullet but my elo is between 1400 - 1500. i usually play 1 min and 30 sec chess and i am quite good at it, howevr when i play 2|1 or 1|1 i get destroyed because my opponent would have more time to think and because i dont think like a 1700 would. i wpuld not compare bullet chess to rapid chess since they are like exactly the opposite. i usually get impatient in rapid games because i prefer faster paced chess. comparing it to blitz would make more sence. bullet isnt really an accurate representation of ur elo sinec the main part to is playing faster chess. i hope that answers your question
Rapid vs Bullet
Sort:
My opponents always use their time to make better moves in rapid... meanwhile in bullet they have no time and make a lot of blunders, and it is easier for me... having more time isn't too much of an improvement in the quality of my moves, and I simply cannot keep up with their deeper level of chess knowledge. It is like having a car with a faster acceleration but lower top speed than other people. In 30 sec chess I have a 50% (2/4) win rate against my 1800 rated friend, and an 100% (2/2) win rate in 15 sec chess. He makes obvious mistakes when he is down to 15 seconds. It is nice to win these fast games, but he jokingly calls this "Chess cancer". Do you guys think that there is any truth to it? Is being good at Ultrabullet but not Rapid bad??