They play to BRAG their lucky wins like this one:
Probably the most EPIC 1 minute game in the history..
At least you have a sense of humor about it, Harish73. I'm tempted to say, round and round she goes, and where the tactical mistakes (on both sides) stop nobody knows. It seems that if you limit your tactical mistakes in Bullet you're the winner. The same can be said of classical chess, but the glaring tactical errors occur far less frequently.
Unless you're a grandmaster familiar with many openings out to move 25 or so, I would say there is little strategy or subtle endgame technique, that is if it gets that far. For most players it appears tit for tat until you lose a piece, and after that you either counterattack like crazy or just get out of the way and hope to survive the clock.
From a practical point of view, I can see it as a means for improving very rapid board vision (versus visualization of future positions or "seeing ahead"). In other words, it's good for determining how you are progressing in Dan Heisman's definition of counting and his safety trilogy of checks, captures and threats.
I'm trying to give it a chance as a useful tool and not be a Bullet Bashing Bastiid.
Thanks for that compliment! :)
Actually bullet isn't that bad game at all. You can improve YOUR TACTICS (you see?!)
With my septuagenarian brain, bullet chess is just a meaningless blur to me, and I never play it. But it's obvious that at the highest level players like Carlsen and Nakamura play some amazingly good chess at the speed of light.
I would never have guessed in a million years that you're a septuagenarian, James. I thought you were a young whippersanpper feeling his oats. I was taught never to sass my elders, but how was I to know.
To quote Red/Green, "I'm pullin' for ya, we're all in this together."