is bullet chess "silly"

There seems to be several possible positions here:

1. Bullet is chess, and not silly.

2. Bullet is chess, but silly.

3. Bullet is not chess and silly.

4. Bullet is not chess but not silly.

5. Bullet is chess, and chess is always silly.

Then again, there is always someone who busts in and wants to stop the whole discussion etc.

Silly and fun.

This discussion is silly. It's also kind of fun to watch. I don't know how you can keep arguing about whether bullet is silly or not. It's a completely subjective question and this thread could go on forever without  anyone gaining a single inch. But it is entertaining to watch and make the odd post.

"Silly" is subjective and there is little point arguing that.  But FIDE has defined what is chess and what is a chess variant.  http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=125&view=article   Bullet chess is chess variant since it doesn't follow the standard rules of chess.  You make up your own definitions, but then you aren't talking the same language as anyone else.

That was not at all an ad hominem - I had not even looked at his ratings at all. It just followed from what he said... that he does not think during bullet. That is how he personally plays bullet and is not the case with other bullet players.

What does that link have to do with anything?
a. Does it say anywhere at all on that page that rapidplay or blitz are chess "variants"? It is laughable that you just throw out a link and say FIDE considers it a variant. They are both just ways to categorize games based on time-controls, as laid out in sections A.1 and B.1. If your notion that not having to record moves, make such games different from standard chess and thus "variants" (even though, AGAIN, FIDE says nowhere on that page they are variants) then basically ALL online chess is a variant of chess (by your definition), no matter the time control.
b. FIDE is just laying out the practical rules for such games in tournament conditions, because of the nature of the time control (e.g. limited time, no need to notate) - they have not AT ALL changed the fundamental laws of the game
c. Moreover, FIDE has drawn up its handbook for the rules ITS tournaments will be played under - they cannot and do not claim to be defining what chess is under all situations. So, yes, two players playing a game in a park without a clock may not be a FIDE sanctioned game, but it is still chess if they are following the rules of chess, not a variant.
d. If anything that link proves the OPPOSITE to what you are saying, with bullet falling under what FIDE considers to be a legitimate time control for the game:

They don't say the shortest a time control can be!
e. Finally, if that is a page of chess "variants", as you assert, where are 960 or any other chess variants listed on that page? Their omission proves that FIDE considers both rapidplay and blitz as chess, and only that they need special, non-fundamental-law-changing, provisions for practical OTB purposes.

Please don't post like you play bullet - a little thought is needed! :P

Of course all on-line chess is a variant.  Glad you were able to figure that out, shows that you are not hopeless.   What makes bullet chess a variant is the rules concerning illegal moves.  Next time try thinking before you post.

what rules concerning illegal moves?

1. An illegal move is completed once the opponent’s clock has been started. The opponent is entitled to claim a win before he has made his own move. However, if the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves, then the claimant is entitled to claim a draw before he has made his own move. Once the opponent has made his own move, an illegal move cannot be corrected unless mutually agreed without intervention of an arbiter.

I don't quite get it, but I know it doesnt apply to online bullet

Basically it means you can make an illegal move and if your opponent doesn't notice it, before he makes his move and punches his clock; then the move stands.  If he does notice that you made an illegal move then he can claim a win.

Your right that online chess software won't let you make an illegal move.  However such things as gaining time on the clock by making pre-moves and the rules for claiming draws are very different in on-line chess.  For instance part of claiming a threefold repetition over the board is recognizing that there has been a threefold repetition.

Wow - now this puts you in an extreme minority - according to you, not only is bullet not chess, but a chess variant, as is ANY online chess at ANY time control likewise not chess but a chess variant. Amazing! I don't think even Atos or others would support that point of view. Online chess is still chess, it just may not be FIDE-rules chess. I must tell my dad that he taught me a chess variant because we did not notate or use a clock :(

Your basic logical error here is you think that FIDE-rules define what is chess for all situations and for all purposes and for everyone, ignoring of course that chess pre-existed FIDE and is a game that had standard rules before FIDE arrived. Maybe you also don't actually understand what FIDE is and what they do. Different federations will actually have different sets of rules - are USCF chess players playing a variant? (https://main.uschess.org/content/blogcategory/131/369/)

I suppose your next crazy point will be that nobody was actually playing chess before FIDE came up with their laws of chess... they were playing a variant :P

It's a database -- tablebase is a chess term.

I guess then chess boxing is not a variant, since the games are databasable.

Well, you could enter the chess moves into the database couldn't you ? But the game might be decided off the board by a knockout, or one the players might be too groggy to pay attention to the moves, but supposably that doesn't matter to it being chess does it ?

That is the illogicality in your position, on one hand you argue that off the board factors like time are important, but on the other hand that they are irrelevant. My position is that, since a chess game necessarily takes place in time, a resonable amount of time is necessary for something to be considered a chess game.

Hm, you are just pushing the ball back over into my court. I was making a general point that a reasonable (yes I made a typo which you brought attention to, as could be expected) amount of time is needed, finding it is somewhat more difficult but that doesn't falsify the general point. I think that possibly 15 minutes per side might be the minimum for a reasonable chess game, and there is a maximum somewhere consisting of how long the players could spend without being significantly affected by physical demands for sleep, eating etc. 

Bullet and blitz games are certainly databasable

I like bullet chess but I'm not very good at it as it is just not chess skill but speed and skill with clicking the mouse fast enough, and my reaction times are just too slow

Your position is simply not logically sustainable. If 15 minutes "might be the minimum for a reasonable chess game" then you are saying 14 minutes and 59 seconds is immediately classified as unreasonable? This seems "silly" :)

And then if you accept 14:59 is also reasonable, then what about 14:45... etc etc etc

Your point is "falsified" because it is guess-work - a GM may find it perfectly reasonable to play for 5 minutes against most of us playing with hours (and still win in nearly all cases). Reasonable is purely subjective.

I think everyone would agree that a 1 second chess game is silly. How about 2? 3? 7?

Oh you draw the line at 60 seconds? What about 59?

Dionysus, unless you agree with me that 1 second chess games are not silly, your point is "falsified" because it is guesswork.