Bullet Rating vs Online rating

Just play with 1s increment and mouse speed will play zero role. :)

If decent players play 1 1 bullet, they will not flag unless the connection is bad as you can play 2-3 moves in one second. 2 moves in one second is possible even OTB.

Bullet is of course not as significant as Blitz, which is less significant than Rapid and tournament chess. Still I don't want to judge whether you need 10, 50 or 200 bullet games to get a result that can be compared with one game at tournament time.

But anyways the decisive factor to win in Bullet is chess skill. If you are slightly faster but keep blundering pieces, you might win one lucky game, but never remain on top in a long match.

There are many good chess players, that are weak at Bullet but I have never seen a good Bullet player that was weak at chess. 

I think what I just observed resloves this debate. In fact FMs and GMs are dominating the bullet games on this site. Thats speaks out itself!

No one is saying u can't be a GM and be good at bullet, he point is that there are reasons why ur ratings for standard and bullet can be have a significant difference

Then OL2000+ cannot be rated 1000 bullet and defeated easily by OL1300 following the same logic.

So many delusional : Malakhov, Kasparov, Movsesian, Anand...

Actually, it's not only for very strong professionals. Here an excerpt of article about the subject from chessvibes.com (http://www.chessvibes.com/advertisement/nakamuras-bullet-chess/) :

US Champion Hikaru Nakamura and Bruce Harper have written the first book about bullet chess.

The authors discuss the relationship between the position on the board and time on the clock, the techniques and dangers of "pre-moving", bullet openings, and the importance of the initiative and consistent strategy.

They also explore the psychology of bullet chess and the most common causes of tactical oversights and blunders. You will learn how to apply the principles of bullet chess to time scrambles in standard chess.

Is bullet any good for your play? YES, says former US Champion Yasser Seirawan in his foreword. It teaches pattern recognition, "ideas are reinforced, helping you with your calculation during tournament play".

Yes, that's why I gave you an example of how I did it once. You prepare the plan by analysing your previous games. And yes ,it makes sense to analyse your games even if it's bullet. You don't need to analyze all your games, just the ones which seem worthy.

And those who did not "developed a sufficiently subconcious positional understanding" can die... or train until reaching that "sufficiently subconcious positional understanding". But how do they train?

" By strictly observing Botvinnik's rule regarding the thorough analysis of one's own games, with the years I have come to realize that this provides the foundation for the continuous development of chess mastery." -  Garry Kasparov

I play way too much blitz chess. It rots the brain just as surely as alcohol. - Nigel Short

Yes, I have played a blitz game once. It was on a train, in 1929.  - Mikhail Botvinnik

He who analyses blitz is stupid.  -  Rashid Nezhmetdinov

Well, we are always going to find GMs with strange opinions; unfortunately, GM Seirawan, I can't agree with you: Bullet assumes your pattern recognition; it doesn't teach it or reinforce it.

As for time scrambles: Time scrambles in a long game are not as easy to compare to a short time control game as one might think. The point is that, even when you are down to your last few minutes, the fact that you have been thinking about the position for hours gives you a sense of closeness to the struggle (you have familiarized yourself with plans, the nature of the position, stuff like this), probably making it easier to find the right moves; in a blitz game, the position is happening in front of you, almost before you can fully process it, making the time scrambles of a more mindless nature, at least in my opinion.

So many stupid guys then... In fact, all blitz players.

Unless analysing does not means the same in this context.

Just wonder how does GM prepare blitz championship? I mean is there never any main lines played in those events?

A GM may well do extensive opening preparation for a blitz tournament. But for patzers it is counter-productive, except to drill opening lines into one's head effectively.

As for analyzing blitz, what good its it other than to pick out simple tactical motifs that were missed in the chaos. There is little to depth to a blitz game, even among titled players.

Not only GM.

Preparing a game is not only about openings. It's better to understand the main ideas thant just memorizing openings.

Improvement come from analysing your mistakes. It's not that hard to understand.

In a 1-2 minute game practically every second move is a mistake. Analysis is only good if you can reflect on why you made a mistake, correlate patterns in your mistakes, and alter your thought process so as to avoid making the same error in the future. Playing and analysing long games is the most effective way to improve your chess, regardless of the time control.

I played some game where our first moves were not all mistakes.

Agreed. And I do that for some of my bullet games.

This is where we disagree. Analysing good games improve your chess, regardless of the time control.

The fact that the game is long does not guarantee you it'll be of good quality.

I believe they are totally different too my bullet i around 1000 and i lose reg to people of online 1200....me 1650.....i find it a good sharpening ex...also a bit of fun.....not to be taken too seriously unlike online!

I think because online chess is the real chress

10 minutes games don't tell anything about a player

because as you all guys know chess is too beautiful and too hard to finish in such a narrow window of time

I have watched top GMs play 1-minute chess. For those who don't think it's quality chess, take a look some time. Yes, there are more mistakes than in slow chess, but the quality is still extremely high.

When I prepare for a blitz tournament I play quite a bit of bullet chess to build up my reaction time. It really does help.

I also recommend bullet chess to reinforce pattern recognition and to work out thematic ideas in the openings. If you play ~20 games against strong opponents in bullet chess, they will give your openings a strong practical test.

Is bullet chess the same as standard chess? Of course not. But it can be a wonderful tool! It can also be heroin. Be careful about getting addicted!

To be fair though, I wonder if we only think the quality of GM bullet games is high because the game goes by too fast for us to see the mistakes! But yes, I am very impressed with what they are able to do; to explain how they do it would be impossible except for the fact that they are so familiar with what good moves look like it becomes automatic for them.

As far as practicing bullet for reaction time: I have played a lot of bullet, and you would think the speed would make me better at moving fast, but it actually doesn't carry over for me: I still get into tons of time trouble in time controls like 5 5, probably because I have too much faith in the increment and take my chances with making long thinks when they aren't really necessary.

Also, for me the patterns move by so fast my brain hardly realizes they are happening and they end up being very difficult to digest. Since I believe pattern recognition is the single most important determinant of skill of all, blitz and bullet must be considered as a better way to improve based on the logic that you are exposing yourself to more chess than in slow chess; the difference though is that, though in slow chess you are looking at less chess, your mind is processing the chess that is happening much better. Quality over quantity, I say. However, practical considerations are important: since playing a classical time control game is something our schedules often don't allow, it does make sense to not take this into the extreme but instead to play shorter games like 40-60 minute games instead, so that the game doesn't take up your entire day.

It's probably not possible to remember 50 games you played if they all happened on the same day, and even if you could, it would be impossible to do so with a satisfactory level of depth.

yeah Elubas so true