is bullet chess "silly"

Well you copied my post (#238 ->#241) while I was editing it so now it reads:

Well I do agree with this, though we do all have a lower time threshold for when chess becomes meaningful.

And my point is, that we all do have a lower time threshold for when chess becomes meaningful, even you. But no matter where that threshold is, it wouldn't make a lot of difference if you lowered it by a second. But you can't keep doing that because eventually you will be playing 1 second chess games and trying to say that it's real chess. 

Whether bullet chess is silly or not, is purely subjective and anyone can have any opinion they like on the matter, and they have no onus, whatsoever, to prove it to you or anyone else.

*yawn*

I have already addressed the silliness question of the OP some pages back, and I agree that it can contextually and subjectively be viewed as "silly".

My other posts were for other posters who suggested that it was not real chess or was a variant because of the time involved. So, yes, if they make a statement like that, which is not subjective, but rather a matter of fact (what I am playing when I am playing a bullet game IS or IS NOT chess, whether it is silly or not, so if someone says it is NOT chess, they should at least provide evidence for why that is, and the time control when chess becomes chess).

Oops, I am repeating myself. But then you might finally see what I am saying. NOT debating the subjectivity in calling something silly. Debating the OBJECTVITY of posters who say bullet chess is not chess.

Well in my opinion bullet chess is not real chess.

That's also a subjective statement which I cannot prove neither can you disprove it.

Saying something is real or not is not subjective; in my "proof" that it is real, I have that it follows the rules of chess and thus IS real chess. What is your evidence to the contrary? If your statement was that it does not feel real to you, that kind of wishy-washiness may fall into subjectivity. But you must have some form of evidence to declare something not real.

Actually I think we've had some reasonably intelligent arguments on both sides here, I'll get back tomorrow after a reasonable break.

Well it's been discussed over and over. There's nothing left to say. It follows the rules of traditional chess but has much shorter time controls which changes the dynamics of the game considerably.

These differences will cause some to say it is not real chess. Others will say it is still chess in spite of these differences. And both are opinions that cannot be proven.

It could be officially defined though, but obviously has not at this point.

to Dion: bullet chess is real,   I say is not,    end of story.

cricket is a game. five day test match (true cricket?)  one day match (still cricket) not true cricket ?

It looked to me that, at least, we didn't get any more silly than we had already been from this discussion. Would like to continue at a leisurely pace.

would you like it to last just for the day ?

Chess has been officially defined - the rules of the game are clear. And they do not have this notion you are introducing of the "dynamics" of the game needing to be a certain way for the game to be considered chess. Is a game chess or not is simply boiled down to whether it follows the rules of chess or not. You keep insisting that this is a matter of opinion, but I don't see how it can be: does bullet follow the rules of chess or not?

I think that you need to check that the rules of chess include more than how the pieces move.

What more than that do the rules of chess include? I don't know anything other than that bullet is just the same as a two hour game, only with the initial time set to one or two minutes instead of two hours.

Ask Fezzik to explain, he is an arbiter I think. 

The rules of football include a bit more than the movement of the ball don't they ? There were fawl and such the last I checked.

"Fouls and such" exist for bullet as in longer chess, the rules are the same, the time is different.

 OK. Well I was talking about an official definition regarding time controls in chess.

I do see your point though, and I would like to know which "official" chess rules you are referring to, and confirmation that heinzie and you are correct that the rules governing movement of the pieces is all that is contained therein. It may have been posted earlier but please don't make me go back and find it. If this is shown to be true, I will concede that you are technically correct.

However, when you take a traditional game like chess, and apply a non-traditional element (very short time controls) that changes the dynamics of the game, it is understandable that many people will not accept this as "real chess." Personally, I would like to see time controls included in the official rules, because it makes a big difference to the game.

I have nothing against people playing at various time controls, I just think since time is a fairly critical element of the game of chess, it should be defined in the rules.

and i would like to see the rating between the two the chess completely different,separately