is bullet chess "silly"

Citing an  anonymous "googled" source as an authority; now that's silly!

It is true that competitive chess involves elements of time management and psychology, but I would hardly think that is a distinctive feature of chess. Psychology is involved in practically every game or sport, and many sports have the element of time management. I don't think that a football team that is dragging the game at minute 90 is "playing chess", even though there might be a superficial resemblance.

you could try the five days test cricket to the one-day match.

Or maybe he has been struck by lightning

[canned laughter]

:S Who said anything about this being a distinctive feature of chess?! I was addressing your specific point that bullet players UNLIKE standard players don't play the "best" moves. In bullet a player AS IN standard chess a player might:

• play less than the "best" moves at all times - because the "best" moves may require a lot of time and analysis. This is the nature of ALL timed chess - if you put a chess engine on unlimited time against any GM game you would find improvements; what they played was the best they could find in that time-control on that particular day.
• play the man, including their clock management, as much as the position on the board - if someone dislikes closed positions and wastes a lot of time thinking of plans in them, that is exactly where you should head!

The point I am making is that bullet and standard are not so different in this respect, whereas you were saying GMs always try to find the "best" moves and, by inference, that the clock is not a key feature of the game. I argue that it is.

When physical dexterity and reflexes become a crucial element of the game then it ceases to be chess.

According to? You? You do realize that most GMs consider PHYSICAL CONDITIONING as a crucial element of their chess success, with many, like Kasparov, getting into great physical shape in order to physically handle competitive matches. Many of you have strange notions that GMs play "perfect" chess in standard games with no consideration of clocks and time, and never choosing simpler yet objectively weaker paths because of practical considerations (like time left, their energy level, upcoming matches, their opponent's weaknesses or strengths)... you think they are just brains doing calculations in a bubble. Well you are wrong. They rarely have the time to play objectively the "best" possible move (this notion is rubbish anyway, the "best" move - since chess has NOT been solved - is the "best" move given a TIME CONSTRAINT; 2 hours is a time constraint; likewise 60 seconds is a time constraint) and they more often that not let external elements (fitness, sleep, energy, the Indian food they ate the night before!) influence their play to varying levels. This is the practical reality that you "purists" refuse to acknowledge - and, just because they are not to do with the position of the board, it does not mean that they are not ultimately part of the game.

Moreover, crazy time scrambles DO happen in OTB chess (is it no longer chess at this stage?).

Moreover, "physical dexterity and reflexes" are close to irrelevant for decent bullet players who can move a mouse reasonably proficiently - as long as you can relay you intended move from your mind to the online chess board in a second or so, you could quite comfortably finish a 40 - 60 move game in bullet. If you are talking about the last few seconds of sloppy chess, even those are present in OTB time scrambles in standard or blitz games where, yes, the mechanics does override the positional considerations, STILL staying within the rules of chess - and not magically ceasing to be chess.

"Moreover, crazy time scrambles DO happen in OTB chess (is it no longer chess at this stage?)."

Yes, it is no longer chess, that is why they now generally  use a 5 second delay on timers.

Well, every tennis professional today does some form of fitness training. Does that mean that physical fitness is useful in tennis ? Yes. Does that mean that we call running or weightlifting "tennis" ? Lol, no.

Similarly, while bullet game includes some elements that are present and arguably important in standard chess, such as pattern-recognition and time-management ability, it lacks some other crucial ones such as the capacity to reflect on unfamiliar positions or handle non-trivial tactical problems.

Oh, so now you have officially declared 5 seconds per move as real chess! I consider this great progress :D :D

I love bullet chess, but I only play when I get bored of regular :P

Again missing my point - I never said physical elements define what is "real" chess - just that they are part of both bullet and standard, and have to be taken into consideration, so dismissing bullet chess because of physical elements is just silly.

The problem with your definition of what is "real" chess or not is that it just relies on highly subjective criteria, whereas mine does not. Your "capacity to reflect" or "handle non-trivial tactical problems" have everything to do with the people playing the game and the time controls involved and time left and not the underlying "ultimate truth" of what is involved (a game played by certain rules under a time constraint).

For example, a GM could discover the "best" move in a position in 3 minutes whereas it may take an amateur hours to find it (if they even do!), but aren't both players still playing chess? Or a GM may avoid analysing a very complicated position or tactic in favor of a simpler path for the sake of time or energy, is he no longer playing chess? Your definition is too subjective and nebulous to be taken seriously - it is not like a move thought about for X amount of time suddenly becomes real chess, whereas one that is thought about for X - 1 second is no longer real chess. When Anand plays out home-preparation in seconds per move in a match, is he no longer playing chess? :D

Yes, he was just about decent at tennis. I seem to remember that Hort was pretty good at tennis. (I watched him once but it was ages ago.) Keres was said to have been pretty good.

the funda of bullet chess is-"speed is more important than accuracy."

Chess is a blend of Tactics (seeing) and Strategy (thinking).  Bullet chess all but eliminates the thinking part.

Maybe the way you play it.

Now this seems to be ad hominem. Your own bullet rating doesn't indicate a bullet pro, even though it seems to be the only time control you play here.

What exactly prevents 960 games from being put into a database ? Why should databasable be the criterion ?

I don't argue as to what is "silly", myself. Vindictive has, appropriately to his username, treated us to the plausible argument that chess is silly, and the less time you spend on it the better etc. These arguments are indeed subjective enough to be irrefutable by logical means, and cannot be very well argued against on logical grounds.