is bullet chess "silly"

Nobody in their right mind uses premoves in 15 minute chess. On the other hand, if you didn't utilize them in 1 minute game, you would be at a substantial disadvantage and probably lose against an opponent of any similar ability who uses them. So yes, it has to do with the time control applied.

This is a practical consideration, not a definition. You do not need to use premove to play bullet chess, by definition. So bullet chess is not fundamentally different from 15 minute chess in this regard: they both follow the same chess laws and online additions (whether you use them or not)

Eh, a "snobbish perversion" ? You really love using strong rhetoric don't you ?

As I said before, I play blitz and bullet, but I consider them as chess variants. That is not necessarily a judgement on their worth. I also consider Chess 960 to be a chess variant while I certainly believe that it is worthwhile playing. (If you want to have a subjective opinion by all means, I think 960 is more worthwhile than bullet.)

Again, GMs may play higher quality chess moves at blitz than amateurs do at long games, but they are not really high quality in relation to THEIR standard play. Occasionally a theoretical novelty might be tested in blitz before it is applied in a standard tournament game precisely because blitz games are not considered to be very important.

Atos, you keep saying you consider them variants or not real chess. But this is NOT a matter of opinion. In what specific ways are they fundamentally different from other timed versions of chess?

Yes, for 960, I can mention one huge fundamental difference: the starting position is different (in at least 959 cases, the 960th is once more standard chess!). So, when I consider 960 a variant, I provide evidence to back up this point.

Again, in what way is bullet chess fundamentally different chess-wise from 15 minute chess? If you have no substantive evidence for your assertion, then you must, logically, concede that bullet is real chess, and not a variant. 

We need to separate online chess from otb here. In otb chess certain draws  cannot be claimed if scores arent being kept, whether or not an arbiter is present. The scoresheet is necessary to validate any claim being made concerning certain claims of draws. Online I suppose the computer can be accepted as the score keeper for both parties ofcourse.  I find it rather comical that those who defend bullet as "real chess" tend to be high rated in bullet and not in classic/slower time controls.  

Yes, online chess with its particular quirks and rules is different from OTB. But what the OP and Atos are saying is that for online chess 15 minutes (for example) is real chess and bullet is not real chess, but a variant and/or silly.

I am over 2000 offline too, I don't play much if any long time control games on any site - just not as appealing as bullet or blitz chess. But, our ratings, high or low, should have no bearing on the question at hand: is online bullet any less real chess than any other online time control? If it follows the same rules, I can't see the reason why it is not real chess.

Hm, why is the starting position considered to be a "fundamental" difference. That is also arguable and I think some people might not agree that the difference is fundamental.

What I consider to be a fundamental difference between bullet and standard time controls is that the short time controls applied on bullet require a different approach to the game, one that makes looking for the best moves (ie those that will eventually result in checkmate) a secondary consideration and fast play a primary consideration as long as one can avoid being checkmated.  

The objective of each player is to place the opponent’s king ‘under attack’ in such a way that the opponent has no legal move. The player who achieves this goal is said to have ‘checkmated’ the opponent’s king and to have won the game.

Is BilliChess silly?

Well, much of this is subective ofcourse. For me "real chess" is slow time control , tournament/rated chess. Online chess is very questionable because of the cheating element involved and the fact that players are even allowed to use "help" such as books, databases, etc.  There are always those who also use "help" that isnt allowed as well. I would say the less time you have to consider your moves the less its about chess and more about who can move faster. In online play 1 0 often simply comes down to who has the best/fastest connection and is possibly using pre move , etc.  Would you consider a game in which both players only have 5 seconds for the entire game as " real chess" just because the rules are the same ?  I would not. So, it comes down to at what time control do you consider it to be real chess ? I would be interested to hear the world's top players give their opinions on whether or not they consider blitz and bullet chess as "real chess". I believe the majority of them don't. 

Hmmmm - let's back up then! How can we debate what is real chess if something as fundamental as starting position is not agreed upon?!

Do you agree or disagree that to be playing chess you need to be following the rules as laid out by FIDE in Articles 1 through 5 (Basic rules of play) here: http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=124&view=article

If you cannot agree that the initial position as stipulated in Article 2.3 is part of what defines chess (in contrast to chess variants, like 960), then this whole discussion is pointless. We need a basic starting point for what chess is before we can possibly debate what types of chess are not chess.

Giving Rook odds is not playing chess?

Okay, I agree that the pieces being arranged in the standard initial position is part of what constitutes chess. The games that use different starting positions would be different games however much they might have in common with chess. What I wanted to bring attention to is that many of the arguments used in defense of bullet can also be used for 960, e.g. that there is a strong correlation between standard chess skills and 960 skills.

(Fezzik: Do you think that you could beat a GM in 960 ? No ? It must be chess then !)

Odds chess would be a chess variant.

Ok, so, then based on that URL, what other parts of what "constitutes chess" are not present for bullet?

Those defences are anecdotal and superfluous - the crux of the matter is, does bullet chess follow the same rules as other time-controlled chess? If it does, then it is real chess, whether it is silly or not :)

Look at the part that I quoted before:

The objective of each player is to place the opponent’s king ‘under attack’ in such a way that the opponent has no legal move. The player who achieves this goal is said to have ‘checkmated’ the opponent’s king and to have won the game.

That is not the objective in bullet?!

Frequently not.

The overwhelming majority of 1 0 games are decided by the clock, are they not ?  This has little to do with chess. Its about speed and little more.