What is your opinion of blitz/bullet time controlls?

I personally think that they are not half as good as normal time controlls. I mean, the whole point of chess is to think, and create a plan, which you have to follow. If you only have 1, 2, or even 5 minutes, you can't really think of a plan like that. If you aren't a GM, in a bullet game you will be playing complete nonsense, random moves, and the most common (if not the only possible) checkmate is scholar's checkmate. If you are a GM, you will probably be playing a bit like (or even worse) I do on normal time controls, which is still pointless. With so fast time controlls, you don't get to think (which is the whole point of the game), and you never experience the full beauty of chess combinations.

This is my opinion, what is yours?

You say this when your bullet rating 1030. You do not have the skill to understand the strain bullet puts you under. When you get to the 1600s as I recently did scholars mate never occurs. To say bad things about shorter time controls because you are not good at the shorter time controls is irresponsible because it might anger other people.

I personally prefer standard time control, too but I also understand people who like blitz/ bullet games more. Both types have advantages and everyone has to decide for himself which one he prefers. 

It's right that you notice more from the elegance of the game when you play standard games but blitz games are more exciting and they help you to find good candidate moves in standard games. 

Moreover "WISH_I_WAS_A_GM" may is right when he says that it depends on your rating if blitz/ bullet games make fun. Also non-GMs can play ordinary blitz games where they develop a plan because your thinking process gets faster by playing chess longer time.

Blutz/Bullet chess and standard time control chess seem to be motivated by tactics and position, respectively. In a quick game, tactics and the potential pitfalls your opponent may fall into seem to be more important. However, such tactical shortfalls may be avoided in a standard time game. Due to my lack of tactical vision, I prefer games with greater time control. Despite this preference, I believe that bullet/blitz are great ways to practice tactics and play the gambit lines that may be deemed dubious in a standard time control game. 

i agree WISH_I_WAS_A_GM . 

he is right when he ays that you dont like it in the rating of 1030.
in Bullet i was even in 900 raing and i hated.
but i have a goal to make better all my ratings (bullet, online, standard, blitz etc). thats why i started playing more bullet. i was good and now my rating is 1400+. and of course many games in bullet are ended with a mate. thge only you hve to do in Bullet is playing fast and never look the clock. when im looking the clock i lose from time. (most of times)

as for Blitz for me is the best type of chess you should play in that site. not Standard cause it has too much time and not Bullet cause it has too little time. Blitz is the perfec. in Blitz i prefer 3|0 or at least 5|0. in these (more in 3|0) i won some tournaments in the site too. Its the best for me although m rating is higher in Bullet. 

Ι οnly played one time on this site, and it was my first. What do you expect, my first time in bullet being a smashing victory? My defeat mainly happened because I didn't understand that my oponent had already moved, and I lost from time. So it is not my rating. I don't hate it because my rating is low on it, I just don't like it.

There is one with 10 minutes time controls. It is also nice. My favourite is 30 minute standard, because you actually get to think about your moves.

I think it's silly.

The other indication that you have a low rating is your belief that the only way a checkmate can occur is via the scholar's mate. I have gotten checkmates in bullet chess and been checkmated in bullet chess in many different ways.

I cannot remember the last time I was mated by scholar's mate, and I rarely attempt the scholar's mate.

Your opinion appears to reflect both inexperience and low-rating. That is not a bad thing. You'll get a higher rating and more experience and realize there are different qualities in blitz and bullet relative to standard, tournament and other versions that make it an interesting game. 

It may not have the clout that a 90'30" game has, but it is a valid, significant, and entertaining form of chess.

True, I was exaggerating a bit. Scholar's is not the only one, and it is quite rare. Sorry about that. But if you watch most bullet games depend on how fast you can click. Checkmates are rare. I don't disagree that much with blitz, 5 minutes doesn't drive you crazy and you still have some time to think. But a clicking race is terrible.

If you watch most games you'll notice that the more frequent and complex the threats are, the more errors and fewer moves there will be.

Your skill level doesn't allow you to see the nuances in a higher rated game. Some of the best blitz and bullet players play unorthodox openings that they are very much prepared for, and others have great speed in processing tactical vision.

Get a game that you have played against another similarly rated individual using blitz or bullet controls and then get one from two players with a thousand point average higher and ask for players to analyze both games. 

There will be extremely remarkable differences.

Just one point of contention OP. A Grandmaster would not play at your level in a bullet game, Grandmasters can wipe experts off the board with that minute even if the expert had an hour.

i agree if you mean 30 minute gae is silly. i think 5 minutes is the best

It's more pattern recognition dependent when it's faster time controls.

I think ability and preferences for different time limits is analogous to ability and preferences for different running distances.

Perhaps quicker limits measure "intelligence" and slower limits measure "wisdom".

(Improve your chess ability and get a title. Call Ali Bongo Baba at 111 1111 1111)

I don't think so. I watched a game of Carlsen with bullet time controls, and it was a bit lame.

Yes, he is dreaming, it  was an incredibly naive thing to say.

Dude your online rating for slow games is 1100, you are too weak to have an opinion.

"Recently a student of mine, rated 1100 (a good high school player), played a tournament in which his playing strength was 1900 (!) for six rounds. He beat four players higher rated than anyone he had ever beaten before." ~Dan Heisman, American Master (Source: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/real.pdf)

I take Heisman's opinion over Dodger111's opinion any day.