Okay, but still the Benoni shouldn't take someone "out of the book", provided that they read it.

tonydal can do that !

I am not sure that I can discern the difference between 2600 and 2200-2300 play without careful analysis, which I am not willing to put into bullet games. However, as pointed out, these games almost invariably have a couple of bad blunders, which even if the rest of the moves are on 2200-2300 level would put the whole game on about 1800 level. As I said before, I don't think that I could win against an FM on standard time control, but if I knew that the FM was going to hang a piece a couple of times in the game... hm... I think I'd win more likely than not.

So what is your OTB rating?  My "performance" was above 2200 for the last several months that I played in tournaments too, but my rating is 2028.  I'm probably a little bit stronger now, since I last played when I was 19 (over 4 years ago), and I see certain tactics better now, but I'm not sure whether I'm up to 2200 level, either. Anyways, the point stands; bullet isn't indicative of actual chess strength.

I also find it funny that the people besides Vindictive "defending" bullet have such a low rating at it.  psyduck claims he can come up with good moves and games at that time control, and yet, his bullet rating is 1885. 

Well, my bullet rating is 2140 and I KNOW I play shitty moves and massive blunders in every game!  I freely admit I suck at it.  If you're rated even lower, chances are, your play isn't very good, either.   

I also don't understand what mention of 3 0 has to do with anything, as that is blitz, not bullet, and actually allows some modicum of thinking, instead of pure instincts. 

Anyways, keep playing and having fun at bullet if you like it (like I do!), but don't be under illusions that it's serious, decent play, or that it will improve your play. 

So many dumb arguments. Fezzik and Vindictive are closest to the truth on this.
Bullet chess IS chess, not a variant, and it only differs from other forms of online chess by the time-control used, not the rules of the game.

Some "silly" arguments:
1. bullet chess is not chess because there are blunders - that would makes 99% of all games not chess
2. you cannot think enough time so it is not chess - a grandmaster thinking for a couple seconds, along with their vast memory of positions, structures and intuition would likely come up with a better move than the majority of chess players, even if they thought for hours. Arguably, in this regard, a GM playing bullet is playing better chess than the majority of chess players in the world.
3. bullet chess is just moving a mouse around so it is not chess - try that against any decent bullet player, you may stay ahead on time, but you will lose on the board; moreover the correlation between OTB strength and bullet ratings show that skill is obviously involved - you won't get a GM who is a 1200 at bullet, and you won't get a 1200 OTB crazed ADHD kid with lightning quick refelexes becoming a 2800.
4. furthermore, from 2, and Vindictive's point, the idea that bullet chess is not chess because there is not enough time to think means that there is some mythical exact amount of thinking time that makes chess actually chess. Maybe it is 30 minutes, maybe 3 hours, maybe 4 days/3 hours/2 mins and 3 seconds?? Who gets to define what is real chess then? As long as the rules are the same (same start position, same pieces movements, and must finish the game in X amount of time) the game is the the same and not a variant.
5. bullet chess is not chess because of the absurd time scrambles at the end - clearly whoever argues this hasn't seen OTB time scrambles that have resulted in absurd results and blunders. The clock is part of the game and if you do not manage it correctly, you will lose, whether in bullet or longer time controls.
6. time is not meant to be a factor in chess - well, this is simply guessing... who said this?! :) Time management, and specifically the related ability to quickly analyse positions - ignoring paths that show no promise and drilling deeper into paths that show promise - is critical at all time controls.

I am not arguing that there will likely be less blunders and more thought out variations in longer chess - but, as with point 1, presence of blunders and bad planning does NOT mean something is not chess. If you make that decision you effectively say that most players below 2700 are not chess players at ANY time control.

My take on bullet is a running analogy: a marathon and a 100 meter sprint are both running, they have a start point and an end point and the person who runs the quickest from point A to B is declared the winner; of course there are various technique differences, different ways to train, different physiques - it could even be said that a sprinter looks "silly" as they strain their entire body to eek a millisecond advantage over their competitors and "purists" could argue that the whole build up, strategy, timed breaks, pacing oneself and cardiovascular endurance in marathon running defines what is really running - but all of this does not matter, they are both running, and that is the end of the story.

Wrong; you just didn't understand what was written.   

1.  Bullet chess is silly, and different from normal chess because even the BEST players, on their good days, blunder in bullet.

[i]If the highest level of bullet ANY human player can achieve means blundering twice per game and playing on the level of a 1700-1800[/i], then it's not all that "serious" of a game, is it now?

To answer the rest of your "points";

2.  Yes, a GM playing bullet is probably better than most players in the world, especially if you include children that have played 20 times in their life. 

So what? 

A normal, unexceptional player like myself on a normal time control could beat any of these guys if they had 1 minute, even if you argue that they would think during my time. 

Why do I say that? Because I have drawn games against GMs in OTB blitz (we both had 5 minutes), nevermind bullet.  Obviously, not every game, but once every 4 games or so.  Would I even have a PRAYER against those GMs in a real, serious tournament game? 

Hell no. 

In fact, I may have mentioned this before, but I destroyed a 2450 USCF rated, borderline IM, Patrick Hummel, in 2 minute bullet. 

This same guy was way stronger than me in 5 minute blitz, and many times better in serious tournament play.  Again what does that tell you about the legitimacy of bullet? 

So yes, addressing your "point" 3, the correlation between bullet "strength" and real playing ability is awful outside of the very, very top bullet players, like Nakamura. 

Time is meant to be a factor, but not the key factor. We infer this from the fact that chess was played for some centuries before the clock was introduced.

Time became an important and even one of the key factor as soon as clocks entered the equation - so the history of no clocks is irrelevant in this case - a no-clock game is NOT any more chess than a clock game; clock/time management, selection of which variations to focus on and which to discard, how quickly you can do this is all as important in long time controls as it is in bullet.

More specious and ultimately useless arguments:
1. even the BEST players, on their good days, blunder in STANDARD time controls. Duh. Moreover those players also get into time trouble anyway. The clock DOES influence the game, as much as this makes you sad. A shorter time control does not change this fundamental truth. Maybe unlimited time for both players is the only true and perfect chess in your mind, but the rest of us have lives to live.
2. So different players can beat different players at different time-controls. Amazing stuff! What does this have to do with anything? Your problem is that you have already assumed that long chess is the only legitimate form of chess. So all of your suppositions stem from that. Why should you not be able to beat strong players in bullet? Are you suggesting that your skill is random and if it was "real" chess you should never be able to beat those people? How about looking at it the other way: the people you beat maybe cannot calculate as quickly as you? Cannot spot tactical shots as quicky as you? Have a less efficient decision-tree selection than you? Just because a GM can be beaten by a less highly ranked player at bullet it does not mean bullet is any less a form of chess - just as a sprinter will get beaten in a marathon and a marathoner will get beaten in a 100 meter sprint.

This ultimately boils down the fallacy and even snobbery of your position, you have subjetively decided one (standard/marathon) is better than the other (bullet/sprint) and anything that does not match up with tht proves that the latter is invalid. You neglect the fact that people can train, develop a skillset and even perfect these very brief competitions.

Getting very strong at bullet IS a skill. FIDE does not award titles for it, but why is a 2800 at bullet time controls not a GM? He has developed his skill to an elite level. GM is just a title - it offends you if they do not rule in all forms of the game - but that is truly a "silly" position. If a standard GM only plays bullet at a 2200-level, is that an indictment of bullet or rather his slow decision making processes?

1.  This is simply not true!  Look at the elementary blunders in those bullet games between Nakamura and opponents.  Simply dropping a pawn, or missing a basic one-move tactical shot.  These rarely ever happen in a normal game between expert-rated players, let alone masters or titled players!

A solid 2200 would make a mistake like that once every 10 games in standard time controls, if not 50. 

In bullet, it's an occurrence several times a game for the absolute best GMs on a GOOD day! 

2.  Your problem boils down to a simple misconception. 

Namely, you think that chess where you are racing against the clock and can't properly analyze the situation is the same as chess where you have an adequate amount of time to think. 

If I have three minutes per move versus three hour per move, chances are, my move is going to be the same in both scenarios.

When I have 1.333 seconds per move versus 3 minutes per move, yes, my move is going to be completely different in a bunch of positions. 

As for your contention that a weaker OTB player beating a much stronger, titled player in bullet proves something, it doesn't. 

Who the hell cares if I spot a tactic in 1.8 seconds and the IM sees it in 2.1 seconds?  Or that my reaction time is just a little bit faster? 

You really think this is a worthwhile, meaningful difference in "skill"?  If so, go ahead and continue thinking that bullet is a meaningful contest of chess ability.

Every titled player I've talked to, including GMs, would laugh at you.

My answer to the OP:

is bullet chess "silly"?

• If you are training to get better at bullet or blitz, then no, it is not silly; if this is your ultimate goal, then practicing towards it seems perfectly reasonable.
• If you want to rapidly go through your repertoire many thousands of time, and then check your moves against your repertoire to see where you are missing moves so that you can spend less time in long-time-control game openings, then no, it is not silly; it would take you many thousands of hours to achieve the same level of comfort by just playing long-time-control games in order to do this [even if you are lucky enough to play the variations you want to train in OTB games]
• If you use bullet to learn to be comfortable in high-stress time-scramble situations that arise in long-time-control games, then no, it is not silly; I often see people fall apart in such situations when even some basic bullet training would have given them some confidence in knowing that they can both move quickly AND rely on their intuition a lot more.
• If you are playing bullet for the express purpose of getting better at long-time-control games, then that does seem a bit silly - sure there are some advantages to playing some bullet - but you can hardly only train with it and hope to get better at long-time-control chess. The same would apply if you only played long-time-control chess in order to get better at bullet!
• Is bullet chess inherently different than other forms of time-controlled chess and thus "sillier"? This is just a subjective matter of taste. A correspondence player may think standard time controls are "silly"; a standard player may think quick time controls are "silly"; quick time control players may think blitz time controls are "silly" and EVERYONE may think bullet time controls are silly! This changes nothing, in each case the rules are the same, the only difference is time-control and personal taste. So when certain forum posters make absurd declarations that bullet chess is not chess, they must realise that someone somewhere likely thinks that whatever form of online chess they are playing is not chess [some people likely think the whole online chess thing is an aberration and a variant of chess, anyway - you can touch pieces, you don't have to press your clock, or notate, and you can even premove... is this "real" chess? :P]. And having seen how some low rated players play in here, I am pretty sure that many people who decry bullet as not-chess really have close to no idea what chess is anyway.... it may just be "silly" to them because it is simply incomprehensible at their chess strength! :D

This is what it boils down to, chess-snobbery. For want of a better word, who gives a s*%t what title players have to say on the matter? I am friends with IMs on ICC who are over 3000. They beat GMs at bullet. Routinely. This is not luck, or chance, or magic. This is a skill. They are empirically (at least in terms of rating) better than many GMs at that time control. Your beef is that you want us to know that they are NOT better chess players - but a chess game without a time control is currently an incoherent concept. A correspondence player could beat standard super-gms given enough days per move - are they "better" chess players? Ratings, titles and world standings in chess ALL take into account the TIME CONTROL involved. Your snobbery is deciding for all of us that standard time control games are the one and only determinant of chess strength. Bullet, blitz, quick, and correspondence chess players would beg to differ. Even if you and your GM "friends" would have a chuckle at that.

We need to eliminate standard time controls, make all important chess tournaments and championship matches lightning . . . and restore some sense to this snobbery madness!

I am not sure who is meant here, but if someone exclusively plays "bullet chess", I would hardly trust them to make the comparison with the other time controls. It is quite possible that they believe that it is chess because it is the only chess-like game they know. Also, the bullet ratings here and on many other Internet sites are inflated, which often leads to people persuading themselves that they are some sort of "bullet experts".

I meant just wrote I wrote: to inexperienced or weak players, a bullet game may appear to be chaotic and random rapid mouse movements to just win on time, thus making it a matter of mechanics and not chess. But to experienced and strong bullet players either playing or spectating a game a great deal of experience, intuition, selective calculation, monitoring of overall board to know when attack or defend and many other reasonable and logical thought processes, including time management, are taking place. Nearly all of this is lost on weaker players, so it is easy for them to dismiss bullet as not-chess.

Agreed! :P

Actually, I would sooner just see the reverse happen, which is other time-controls getting more legitimacy and prize money, this IS happening - the internet itself is responsible for massive growth in bullet - more bullet games are now played online than any other form of chess (this is just mainly because of the quick nature of a game - for every 5 minute blitz game, bullet players can play multiple games) - and more players playing the game, and more tournaments that promote it will make it rewarding for people who are SKILLED at bullet, which is only fair.... almost anyone who is exceptionally skilled at anything on the planet, may as well make a living off of it - chess-snobs and titled players be damned! :)

Oh no, the poor soul has been brainwashed... or worse, he has suffered a bullet in the head. :p

I don't think that we were discussing the bullet players who move randomly trying to win on time. There are such players but I think we can agree that strong bullet players don't move randomly. However, the time still remains a crucial factor in the game. Often, a game that on the face of it may look like it was decided by a mating attack or other tactics was so decided only because the other player was in time trouble whereas if they had 10 seconds more they would have refuted it. Often, a bullet player does not try to find the best moves but the moves that will force the opponent to spend clock time, or the moves that save time for them etc. I think that is what we were talking about.

This is fairly standard practice in long games with GMs as well. Sometimes they don't want to waste time on the "best" moves - more often than not, a GM chooses the simplest path that leads to victory - simplification and other practical considerations OFTEN trump "best". Sometimes a GM will actively avoid complications because they will take a lot of their time, and sometimes, especially helpful if they know their opponent spends a lot of time in complicated positions, they will make moves that make things more complex. They, in this way, do often "play the man" and use the clock, as opposed to purely focusing on what is objectively best on the board. Bullet just massively expedites this. You have to know when to spend some time on a combo, or how to make your opponent spend time on complications.... it is all still chess, just chess sped-up.

Nice job COMPLETELY IGNORING every significant point made in my post, and instead latching on to the final sentence, out of context.  And you have the arrogance and hypocrisy to call other people "dumb". 

Clearly, you're not interested in rationally discussing this question with anyone, but just endlessly hammering the same points over and over, ignoring what other people type in response. 

You've already convinced yourself that your sub-standard 1900 bullet play is something as meaningful as standard, OTB tournaments.  But there's a reason why the overwhelming majority of chess players, including much stronger bullet players than you (like myself) disagree. 

You simply don't care to listen. 

You made signficant points? Rational ones? To whom? Maybe to your GM "friends".

Did I say at any stage that bullet is "as meaningful" as standard, OTB tournaments? That is YOUR straw man. My point all along, rather, is that they cannot be compared in this way - much like a 100 sprint is not more or as "meaningful" than a marathon - "meaningful" is not coherent in this context (likely over your head).

You then continue your argumentum ad populum in the hope that the more people you can say support your idea, the more correct you are, ignoring all logical arguments to the contrary. You and your GM "friends" would be the ones thinking the world is flat in the middle ages and saying it must be because "everyone" thinks so.

And then to top it all off, you go to ad hominem to try to finally seal the case - going after my rating in bullet in here (you have no idea what my rating is on other sites or offline, but you feel this childish approach somehow gives you authority).

If you want to debate a subject in a convincing way, stick to subject and don't resort to logical fallacies. You are the one who has convinced yourself that bullet chess is sub-standard chess, when all it is the same as other chess: it is playing the best chess you can in the time allotted - the fact that there will be more inaccuracies in bullet than standard, and more in standard than correspondence, does not make either respectively "less" chess. This is where your logical argument falls apart and makes you resort to fallacies.

Since you are so enlightened and an authority on the matter - and to prove finally that you and your GM "friends" are objectively correct on what kind of chess is meaningful or not - maybe you can give us sub-standard players a guide-line: at what time control does chess become "meaningful"? 60/60? 2 hours for 40 moves and 1 hour per 20 moves after that? 90/90 with a 30 second increment from move 1? I want to start only playing "meaningful" tournaments so your definition would be much appreciated. Of course I know you have an exact time because the notion of whether something is "meaningful" is not all subjective - we need people like you and other higher-authorities to decide what is "meaningful" for the rest of us :P