If you deliberately create conditions that make winning/losing on time more likely than the game being decided by the standard outcome, then you cannot very well maintain that it is "incidental"
is bullet chess "silly"
Sort:
Possibly the proverbial question of "Where to set the lower limit ?" could be answered in the following way: what is the lowest time control where the majority of games are decided by checkmate or resignation (which indicates that checkmate was seen as inevitable), and not by one of the players being flagged ?
Fezzik wrote:
Reb wrote:
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.
It would be nice if you had any evidence for this statement. But if someone is forced to think too long about their moves and therefore loses on time, then it's still about the moves.
Evidence for a statement ? Perhaps you didnt see the " are they not" at the end ? Just go look at the histories of any of the 1 0 players here and see how the games are finished : mate, resignation or time....... from the games I have looked at, and played, most are indeed decided by the clock. Its possible that you have a different experience I suppose but I doubt it.
Fezzik wrote:
Atos wrote:
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.)
...
The reason I call Atos' position a "snobbish perversion" is that a basic corollary to his position is that since high quality chess is the goal, chess that is not played at a high quality is therefore not truly chess, but some variant.
The necessary corollary to Atos' position is that chess played below the master level is not chess, but some inferior variant of the game.
This isn't reductio ad absurdum, this is a direct conclusion made from his argument.
If you would kindly note that I already explained that by quality moves I meant quality moves in relation to "one's own level of ability, whatever that level is", there would be no need to draw such absurd conclusions, or to keep making irrelevant arguments.
Fezzik wrote:
Reb, I just went to ICC and looked. The majority of your 1 minute games were decided by flag. The majority of 1 minute games in Smallville's history were decided by mate or resignation.
Perhaps the difference depends on the level at which the game is played?
I am old and slow and NOT a world class GM so comparing my 1 0 chess to smallville's is like comparing apples and oranges. I meant look at some of the more active 1 0 players who are here...... and preferably NOT world class GMs. I suck at 1 0 and have no problem admitting it because I am too slow.
Okay, I just took a look at the games of one of the top rated bullet players on the site, IM Trendle. Out of the last ten 1 minute games against a 2800+ opponent, four were decided by resignation, 2 by checkmate, and 4 by one of them timing out. That barely makes it above 50 % not being decided by flag. If that is so with the top bullet players, what do you think the statistics that include 1500s and below look like ? Or shall we say that only 2800+ really play "bullet chess", and they barely ?
Technically bullet chess is chess because time controls are not defined in the basic rules of chess. Later on in the [FIDE] handbook, it does address the clock issue, but that applies to tournaments. If you rule out bullet on those grounds, you will necessarily be ruling out basically all online chess as well as chess at the park etc. etc.
On practical grounds, bullet chess is a different game which requires a different, albeit overlapping skill set.
I think it's safe to say this thread and by extension anything discussed in it is silly.
I do agree with that actually. I don't know why it's so important to pin down whether bullet is "real chess" or not. But once you are drawn into this "silly" discussion it's hard to escape.
Vindictive wrote:
I think it's safe to say this thread and by extension anything discussed in it is silly.
I think it's safe to say that you are silly.
Atos wrote:
Vindictive wrote:
I think it's safe to say this thread and by extension anything discussed in it is silly.
I think it's safe to say that you are silly.
I think it's safe to say that this little discussion is silly.
Dec 17, 2010
0
#253
Bullet follows the exact same rules as chess, more so since (as Batgirl stated) time controls are part of competition, not of the game itself. Chess games can be played under any time controls, and it remains, by that definition, the same game.
Time controls are relevant, however, in two ways.
1. They make it easier to assess and appreciate playing strength from a game.
When you see a game, you usually try to relate to the player behind the moves on display. Do you understand what he is trying to do, is he doing it skillfully? We can say Nakamura is a strong player because he blunders only moderately in bullet, just like we can say he is strong because he blunders rarely in 2 hour games.
Regardless of time control, I think motivated people play to "one's own level of ability, whatever that level is" (Atos). That is because I don't think there exists an "own level of ability" unrelated to the time controls used. (If you can 'max out', I don't think that happens in 2 hour games already.) So Naka is playing up to his potential regardles to time controls. We just need to know what they are to determine how we value his play.
2. Time controls force us to consider our imperfections when evaluating moves on their merit.
There is this idea of perfect chess, which is logical because there is such a thing as best play. Most players like to sac a queen, but most of those wouldn't be so proud if the opponent could have easily refuted the sac. Soundness mattters, because most players don't just play to win. They also play because they like the challenge of trying to play 'perfect' chess.
Most of the time when we evaluate moves, we try to relate them to what would have been a 'perfect' move. In bullet, that approach hardly makes sense. Humans aren't perfect, and given the time controls imperfect moves will often represent the quickest way to a win. Bullet chess, much more than 2 hour chess, forces us to accept the fact that we are imperfect, which also forces us to choose how we label 'good moves' as 'good'. By relation to a perfect game or to winning chances? The latter seems to become more sensible under shorter time controls.
To many chess players, who like the idea of trying to play perfect chess, bullet chess seems 'silly' because they almost have to abandon the idea of perfect moves when evaluating the quality of moves played.
In reality, I don't think this could mean bullet isn't chess.
Tal played sacrifices in 2 hour games that weren't sound, but worked that time control. Where these moves bad? It is the exact same issue.
Objectively,games give you rules and say you should try to win. They don't tell you how to win besides staying inside the rules. Ugly soccer is still soccer, and imperfect chess is still chess. The fact that our imperfections become wayyy more apparant in bullet doesn't make it a different game.
I can understand that 'perfectionists' think it is silly not to try and play 'perfect' moves, but rather to play under timings that magnify your imperfection (and see that as the challenge).
My point is that there is nothing in (the rules of) chess that stipulates how you should find challenge in the game. That's up to us, as long as we try to win.
Therefore, I maintain that bullet chess is chess, that time controls controls should be given when sharing games, and that bullet may be silly to those who get their enjoyment striving for perfect moves.
Dec 17, 2010
0
#254
Several points:
1. Since time, it itself, is not an integral part of chess by official definition, then I would have to conclude one of two possibilities: a) as RC_Woods states, any time control is perfectly acceptable - but it seems this would apply only to competitive chess or b) making time a prime factor (despite unsupported contrary claims) is, in fact, in opposition to the spirit of chess - where time isn't a consideration at all by Official Definition.
2. If I were to play a game making legal moves at random with no intention of threatening or mating my opponent or avoiding threats/mate, would I be playing real chess?
To say "yes," that making meaningless moves is playing chess, is to imply that chess is meaningless (imagine a baseball game where the pitcher and other players threw the ball wherever they felt without violating the rules of baseball, would they be playing baseball?).
To say "no," that is not playing chess, admits that there is more that defines chess than the basic rules of play. So, the definition of Chess quite likely lies beyond the rules of play.
3. Once again, in standard Chess time trouble is the thing to avoid while trying to checkmate. Bullet makes time the All Important Factor (for most of us) with checkmate as the thing to avoid while managing time. So, in that sense, bullet is not only not chess, but a perversion of chess - therefore a variant.
4. But either way, this thread isn't even about whether bullet meets the criteria of being Chess, but rather whether it's a silly activity. I think that's pretty subjective. That it's a game some people enjoy, for them it's not a silly endeavor. However, for most of us non-titled players, it produces substandad chess and that's what I feel most people are expressing when calling the game silly.
I didn't read this rant, I just saw this:
"In online play 1 0 often simply comes down to who has the best/fastest connection and is possibly using pre move"
That is false. Unless you have a mobile phone connection or/and you are connecting from a remote Siberian region to a server located in Brasil, lag is under 1 second.
I've also noticed chess.com improved a lot in terms of bullet games. Some time ago they were much slower compared to the "bullets" on other servers.
Atos: you don't play bullet. Bullet means 1 0. 2 1 is a different time control and you get a very different game. I find that 2 1 produces games of higher quality than the fast blitz time control of 3 0.
heinzie wrote:
Is BilliChess silly?
That thread is locked otherwise this would be another great suggestion for our friend, tippy. Sillibillichess. Then he could market sillibillibulletchess which would be clearly defined as a variant of sillibillichess.
bondocel wrote:
Atos: you don't play bullet. Bullet means 1 0. 2 1 is a different time control and you get a very different game. I find that 2 1 produces games of higher quality than the fast blitz time control of 3 0.
I don't know, I think 2 1 is still bullet, although a somewhat different (more chess-like) form of bullet.
Dec 17, 2010
0
#259
you silly billy! anyway putting my serious head on;
2/1 is classified bullet by chess.com
Bullet chess is fine otb, also online is fine if both agree to avoid pre moves.
Pre moves can make the game silly given a little lag, a 'one minute game' can run to tens of hundreds of moves and last over an hour. If pre moves were allocated some time say half a second this would remove the anomaly & the silly tag.
I think bullet chess can be useful for those with lots of mental energy to burn, which rules me out.
>:)
Dec 17, 2010
0
#260
bondocel wrote:
Atos: you don't play bullet. Bullet means 1 0. 2 1 is a different time control and you get a very different game. I find that 2 1 produces games of higher quality than the fast blitz time control of 3 0.
Wrong. Bullet is a category, not a specific time control.
In the old days, there was just blitz and standard. Then they added bullet/quick. The specification was etime less than 3 minutes. This leaves all the following time controls.
1 0, 2 0, 0 1, 1 1, 2 1, 1 2, 0 2, 0 3, 0 4
Of course, compared to 1 0, a 0 4 time control is basically correspondence.
Frequently not.
No, the objective of both bullet and standard chess is exactly the same - as posted above - winning on time in just incidental and the frequency thereof in no way changes the fundamental objective. You cannot say that a bullet game is not chess because people can win on time, or you would have to say standard chess is not chess because people can win on time. Sometimes in standard chess you cannot play out a game to a mate (your opponent resigns or you run out of time, for example) - this applies in exactly the same way to bullet.