is bullet chess "silly"

Bullet chess is different. Very different. And very silly.

Just because your bullet games look like crap doesn't mean all bullet games look like crap. But it is a good call to think a good portion of them do.

Does "percentages" ring the bell ?

http://hawaiichess.org/files/USCF_Blitz_Rules.pdf

note the rev 2007 at the bottom of the page.

That has basically been the rule for blitz as long as I can remember and I think the FIDE rules are similar.  Also note that blitz is different than quick chess with a five minute time limit which would follow standard chess rules.   Quick chess would normally be played with a five second delay on the timers so that you would always have time to physically make a move.

Of course bullet, and definitely 1 0 is utter silliness.  I don't see how anyone can argue otherwise. 

At the same time, I still find it fun to play 1 1 or 2 0, and have played some 1 0 games in the past, before I even knew about pre-moves! 

That Nakamura game cited on page 1 contained a simple blunder on like move 15 where Black could just take the pawn on e5 instead of playing c3.  It's the type of unforgivable, basic mistake a solid 2200-2300 OTB would avoid in a 5-minute game. 

Bullet is mindless fun (and to a lesser extent, so is blitz!), but fundamentally different than a game with normal time controls. 

A strong enough player's bullet is better than a weak player's turn-based chess. But it's a lot quicker, so that must be what makes it silly? People rarely say weak players playing chess is silly, and the counter to both claims would be the same - it's just a game for fun, and if two players enjoy playing a version of chess, it doesn't matter what others think about it.

What do you consider "strong" enough and what do you consider "weak" enough?  That game between Nakamura and a legitimate GM posted on the first page, while extremely uneven throughout (some awful blunders and some very strong moves), was played on the level of two 1700-1800s USCF/FIDE-rated OTB.  (Maybe not anymore thanks to the recent rating inflation, but back when I played tournaments 4-5 years ago)

There were blunders that you would virtually never find in the tournament play of anyone rated at least 2000. 

If that is the VERY BEST bullet is capable of, then yes, it's a silly game. 

But then again, there's nothing wrong with that.  Embrace the silliness and insanity of bullet!  If it's all just fun, who cares?!

speed chess and Corona...great times!!

I know your main point is made in the last paragraph, but I think your first paragraph is more interesting.  If good 1/0 players play at the same level as 1800+ (above average), then surely it's no sillier than most of the OTB slow games that are played.

i don't know about double exclamation point on that last move, it was pretty well announced beforehand

Why is it silly? The kind of thinking you do in bullet is different from the kind of thinking you do in regular chess, but that doesn't make bullet silly. It's a bit different in that respect, but what makes NOT chess?

In any case the time trouble will teach you how to make many horsie moves in a row (this will improve your strength from 1300 to 1700)

It will only make your strength better

silly and fun, what is wrong with a game being silly ...

It seems to me that it is a red herring to post bullet games of GMs and say: "Look, they can make pretty good moves in bullet." (Although if you took a closer look there were probably a couple of pretty bad blunders as well.) The reason they can make good moves is that they are GMs, not that it is bullet. Surely on a longer time control they would be playing much better than that.

If I can sometimes play as well as this at 3 0, surely a GM could sometimes play as well at 1 0? The only error I see as significant was missing 18. Bxe6 (failing to play 21. fxe4 is not crucial, and the same goes for missing faster mates at the end). Other than that, I'd be pleased with this as a turn-based game. Undoubtedly my opponent should take most of the credit for what happened.

 hey doomsuckle - how can I get my wife to meet your wife!...lol  I feel your pain.

That's simply not true, though.  Of the two bullet games you posted on page 4, both were decided by elementary blunders.  You are greatly overestimating how good these bullet games are, especially if the absolute best at it, like Nakamura, make basic, D player level blunders they would avoid with even 5 seconds to think about the move!

The play is highly uneven, but saying they would "torch any 1800 USCF" is ridiculous hyperbole.  Yes, they might play 10 moves in a row much better than someone at that rating could ever manage, but then they will blunder on the 11th.  Blunders are inevitable in 1 0 play, which is why if anything, my estimate of 1700-1800 strength might be a bit generous.

That is, if you play most moves at a 2000-2200 level, but reliably make one or two huge, game-altering blunders per game, that is not a strong level at all. 

Is it worthwhile chess worthy of serious study?  No, not really. 

But again, why does it have to be?  Isn't being crazy, silly fun enough? 

I honestly do think it's silly but I still play it to make sure when the time comes if I ever get that low in time trouble I won't be playing completely horrible.