is bullet chess "silly"

The idea was that "true bullet" is regarded to be only 1 0. Even 1 1 is a very different game.

3 0 is blitz, 2 1 is bullet. You can clearly see the difference between astute and silly.

I use increments on any time control, on the Internet. In OTB, I could play five minutes without increments.

That also increases your chances to be matched up with a computer

@ Batgirl

1. I agree with the options you are stating. Perhaps it is against the spirit of chess to make time a factor, since perhaps chess is about the aesthetics of flawless play. Then again, I can very well understand why the clock was introduced (time has been abused before there were clocks too..). As we are using a clock anyways, I'm not too picky about timeframes. (I do feel you'd have to be physically able to make at least 30 moves or so, but bullet easily meets such a criterium).

2. I don't quite agree. To play a game is to try to win it within the rules of play. And that is to the best of your abilities. Most of us have an understanding of the game beyond moving Nf3-Ng1-Nf3-Ng1 (), but if someone really hadn't and was really trying, I'd say he was playing a (very poor) game of chess.

So, if we are allowing time as a factor, then winning on time is possible and legit. Even if that's your main strategy, you still have to avoid being mated and I'm quite certain that you'd be generating mate threats anyway. (offense is a great defense, in bullet too). It's not like you're not going to mate if you can. So I don't think there has to be more to chess than following the rules and wanting/trying to win.

3. The goals of the game don't really change, but working with the fact that we aren't perfect we have to be practical. That happens in 2 hour chess too, as sometimes people play for a draw. (If I played against Carlsen with black, I might also focus primarily on avoiding mate .) 

I think it can be argued that playing for a draw is more against the spirit of the game than playing for a win on time. 

I could, however, sympathize with someone argueing that time has been introduced as a necessary evil. (If you were arguing that essentially time goes against the spirit of chess). Then, I could see that it'd be more consistent to limit its effects by sticking to the longest time controls that are still practical for competitive play. But really, that is an interpretation of events that I don't know much about. (you probably know more there). The fact is that there isn't anything in the rules about the 'spirit' of chess, so for the sake of consistency I'm sticking with the statement that as long as you try to win (which includes winning on time), you're legitimately playing the game. 

4. I agree, and I don't even attach much importance to the question "is it chess or not". Then again, I am not averse to debating matters of principle. As Atos put it, I don't think thats any more silly than the 1000th thread on Fischer vs Kasparov.

As for the question 'is the game silly', I don't even know if you can answer that before answerring the question if it is chess or not. After all, if it isn't chess, than how exactly is it going to be silly because it doesn't compare well against chess evaluated by chess standards. That would be mental! (You don't call checkers a silly game because the king is hard to discern - you judge it on its own merits).

I think that bullet is chess, so for me the question would be if 1 minute is a silly time control. It certainly does produce sub standard games if you judge games only against perfect play. 

I think that for me, chess is a valuable activity because it for me it is entertaining, challenging and (sometimes) aesthetically pleasing. The latter of those is not as present in bullet, but the former two certainly are. Therefore, I don't really think 1 minute is a silly time control, because for me chess still delivers. 

For someone who primarily plays for the aesthetics of perfect play, I can see that it would be a silly time control. 

Therefore, in my mind, the question "is 1 minute a silly time control" is certainly subjective. Is it chess? I think that its most consistent to say it is, even though I sort of sympathize with the view that time controls might be 'against the spirit of chess'. (I don't want to win or lose my longer games on time at all! )

Yes it does. But playing against a "clock master" on 1 0 or 2 0 or 3 0 is almost as bad as playing against a "user."

I very strongly prefer increments on my longer games as well. (In standard I almost exclusively play 15 10). 

For me the increment is about being able to win a clearly won position. Not being able to do that frustrates me. The fact that I have more time invested than the max 2 minutes of bullet might play a role there as well .

There are no clock masters, just better players. If you don't like timed games, feel free to play correspondence.

I was a slow player myself. 4 years ago it looked impossible to me that I could play 1 0 bullets. 5 mins blitz looked then way too fast. Now it looks kind of slow. Do you know why I made this switch? Computers. At 1 0 you will encounter very few cheaters.

I know that you have an obsession with cheaters, but it's possible to cheat on 1 0 as well - whether with using autochess, or what is more frequent, messing with the clock. Anyway, I'll not switch to a game that I don't like and that is only marginally related to chess because of cheaters. And if 5 minutes looks too slow to you, you have obviously gotten a worse chess player.

RC_Woods, thanks for the detailed and thoughtful response. I love reading such comments.

On point 2, I'll have to stick to my guns.  As you said, chess is about trying to win to the best of your abilities - otherwise, why play??  So, random moving, or not trying to win, both satisfy the "rules of chess" by avoiding violations, but neither satisfies your own contention that "To play a game is to try to win it within the rules of play."   And if one moving "as if" one is playing chess, i.e. satisfying the written rules, but not satisfying your own logical definition of "playing a game," then the answer to "what is chess?" based soley on the "rules of chess" lacks conviction (to me).

I would disagree that playing for a draw is against the spirit of chess - unless, of course, you have the reasonable expectation for a win, yet chicken out and play for a draw. Sadly, I've done that and truly felt more despondant than if I had played for a win, blundered and lost, so I know it offended Caissa. But playing for a draw against a much stronger opponent, when a draw in itself would be a percsonal victory seems sane and totally within the spirit of chess (just as would accepting odds).

"So, if we are allowing time as a factor, then winning on time is possible and legit."
But the point is - by official definition of chess (FIDE), time is not a factor, but only becomes one in officially sanctioned competition (or by mutual agreement, I suppose).  There is nothing at all illegitimate, or unsavory about losing or winning on time. But when time becomes the PRIME factor, even competitively, since time is not a factor in Chess itself, then it seems also an affront to Caissa - like taking a totally unnecessary ingredient and building your recipe around it, it becomes something else, maybe something delicious, but something different nonetheless. I may like carrots in potato salad (and you can make potato salad just fine sans carottes), but when I use 10 carrots and .5 potatoes, it may be good (or may not!) but it's no longer potato salad.

Most people know something about the historic introduction of time controls and the arguments and discussions that accompanied those advances(!?), but someone here seems to think the reasons for time controls are mysteriously incomprehensible and pure conjecture, so I didn't bring it back up.

Fezzik,

"time is not a factor, but only becomes one in officially sanctioned competition (or by mutual agreement, I suppose). "

Time, space, material

Then you missed the entire point.

Fezzik, if Judit Polgar agrees to play pool some day, that will not make pool chess. Agreement to certain rules only signifies agreement to certain rules, nothing more.

No, it's not in the Rules of Chess, but in the Rules of Competition - an important distinction.

According to the rules, I'm right, and you're wrong.

I'm half right.... and half left.

I know very well how you can cheat at 1 0. And believe me, messing with the clock is just too difficult to be worth the time.

As for the rest of your post, I got to love bullet games! Yes, 5 minute became too slow for my taste, but that doesn't mean I don't play it. And I play it quite well. Overall, bullet and blitz made me a better player.

The longest you play is 3 0 from what I see. But it's possible that bullet and blitz could make someone a better chess player but that doesn't make them chess. Just as fitness training could make someone a better tennis player but still it doesn't make it tennis.

Oh, and messing with the clock on 1 0 doesn't take a computer genious at all.

There is a, yes, distinct subsection for competition that doesn't apply to the game of chess in general.  As the rules under Competition don't apply to the Univeral rules of chess- those rules that cover all games (unless there is a particular reason for an amendment)-  but only to games played under certain conditions, it is saying that the rule isn't intrinsic to the game of chess, but only to certain games of chess - those played with a clock either by condition or agreement.  The Pertinent Point is indeed: COMPETITION RULES. And it's a relevant and important distinction.

The real point is time control is NOT an intrinsic element of chess, just in certain conditions.  And since it's not an intrinsic element of chess,  to make it a PRIME factor in a game, even one for which it is a most acceptable, even desirable factor, changes the very nature of the game.