is bullet chess "silly"

By "reasonable amount of time" here is meant the time control that enables one to play close to their optimal level of chess ability, whatever that level is, while also not wasting time unproductively. That a GM could beat an amateur while playing way below their standard level of ability is a red herring and has nothing to do with this. Also, "reasonable" is not meant here in other possible senses of "reasonable"; eg I find it more convenient to play blitz than long games on the Internet for practical reasons etc but not for chess-related reasons. Perhaps we could use "optimal" instead of "reasonable" if that will help.

I never drew the line at anywhere - in fact 10+1 is perfectly acceptable. But your question does raise an important question, which is when does even bullet chess become absurd? Of course at 1 second (without increment) you cannot mechanically play out a game

I think the threshold should be when you can no longer mechanically play a game consistently to its chess-based conclusion (draw, mate, resignation). Then the balance is tipped away from chess towards being a purely mechanical exercise.

For the sprinting analogy, there are many different lengths substantially less than 100m that have meaning and are thus "reasonable" distances (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40-yard_dash or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/60_metres ). The question is at what distance would this no longer be running? At 5 meters this would likely take one leap, so would more likely be leaping or long jump and you would also need to work out whether they were walking and not running (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racewalking - "it is different from running in that one foot must appear to be in contact with the ground at all times") so the movement of both legs would at least need to be seen once each, and likely twice (since one would be a step, two would be the plural needed for "running"). So maybe 10 meters becomes a mechanical threshold for where something could be said to be running and not walking or leaping? (Yes, just guessing!)

So for chess:
How many moves can something be called a game? One idea is 30 moves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_chess "no drawing or resigning during the first 30 moves")
How long does it take someone mechanically to make a move? (without premove, because I can agree that premove is in no sense classical chess) I would say 1 second is reasonable, although in my experience .5 seconds from opponent move arrival to making your move is quite doable.

Which leaves us somewhere around 30 seconds for a game without increment or premove that reasonably can be played to conclusion in any chess sense.

But, of course, this opens us to the debate of both how many moves should be made before it can reasonably said to be long enough? (29? 28? etc) Or how short a time should be given to allow for a response? (0.9 seconds?) But I am fine with debating those numbers in a purely hypothetical way (since practically no chess server has users playing at these time controls)... but I don't get why there would be any debate at all about 60 seconds, since you are still playing chess, and can finish a game to its chess conclusion.

The overall point is that you are exactly right - if I came up with a number (which I have not, the above is just thinking aloud, not a rule like Atos and others have provided) - you could say it is guess-work! Which is why I will not come up with a number and which is why I say anyone who does come up with a lower-limit is just guessing....

On a side note, maybe someone should start a thread on the very subject you introduced "To bullet players, at what time control is even bullet no longer chess?" - could lead to even more extended and heated debate :)

The problem with "reasonable" or "optimal" is that they are just too subjective to base a definition of chess on - for any given person, chess would be defined differently! (Your optimal time is not my optimal time, for example).

Which is why I prefer the simpler and logically more defensible requirements needed to answer the question "Are you playing chess?":
Are you playing by chess rules?
Can you mechanically make chess moves?

I don't think that's a fair question.  It's a different skill-set.  Standard time control allows for a deeper game, that's certainly true.  The tactics tend to be shorter and the game is more about time-control.  But it's still chess.

I think bullet chess is most exciting from a non-chess playing spectator standpoint and because of that, I think it's the only way for chess to come back as a spectator sport.  A game that takes 30 minutes even is very slow, like bowling or baseball.  Lots of commentary, not a lot of action.  Bullet chess is like Hockey or Basketball.  Heavy on the action.  Guys that like a slower game, more power to them.  But, I'm around non-chess playing people constantly and when we play standard time control at lunch, it's not spectator-inducing.  Bullet, on the other hand, is.

Is bullet good for your chess overall?  It's the oposite.  Improve your chess, your bullet will improve.  Bullet only allows you to work with ideas you're already aware of, standard time control allows deviations to be contemplated.  The frenzy of a 1 minute game is fun to watch, and the purists forget that without spectators, there's no sponsors, no sponsors, no money.

If anything, I think you could assemble some very good players for an OTB bullet tournament and have it work well for a broadcast format. Remove the simultaneous games, only one at a time. Single elimination.  A format where you put 20 players together in a touranment setting, that's 43 games in my estimation.  Maximum running time theoretically is 2 hours with commercials.  It's 86 minutes actual playing time, about the same full running time as a basketball game or any other sport.  Chess could be televised again.

Chess.com has the means to do this online, have Pruess or someone be the commentator, why don't they give it a shot? Do an invite to every bullet chess player over 2000 or something, see who wants to do it, pick the guys with the top 20 ratings.

Searching for Bobby Fischer comes to mind.  They're playing 5 minute time control for those games in the movie (theoretically) but they're moving like it's a 1 minute bullet game.  It's just more fun to watch.  Yes, mistakes happen, but as fast as the game moves, recognizing and capitalizing on those mistakes is just as difficult as avoiding the blunder in the first place.

Am I a high-rated player? No.  I'm trying to get better.  So leave the ad-hominum attacks out of it.  Just because I can't whip you at 1 minute or standard doesn't have anything to do with whether or not my points are valid.

Honestly o.o this kinda sounds pointless o.o

 Atos wrote:

 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. 

Dionysus wrote: 

Which leaves us somewhere around 30 seconds for a game without increment or premove that reasonably can be played to conclusion in any chess sense.

Atos never made a rule. He suggested 15 minutes was possibly a reasonable lower end limit. You've suggested 30 seconds. Both can be reduced by a second with very little change to the overall game. If his suggestion is flawed, then so is yours.

My personal opinion is that bullet chess is silly, but I realize that for others it is not. Trying to use sources and quotes by famous chessplayers etc. to "prove" that bullet chess is silly/not silly is even sillier IMO. But the silliest thing of all, is to accuse someone of using a flawed argument and then doing the very same thing.

Great job at ignoring my ENTIRE post. I clearly said I was GUESSING and there WERE FLAWS (e.g. a game might be 29 moves)... so was not in ANY WAY suggesting that 30 seconds WAS the definitive, actual shortest time control a game could be. In fact, any lower limit, above, say, 0 seconds, could be likewise met with serious debate. I made your (in fact MY) VERY point about the 30 seconds being lowered even more (if we lower either required moves per game or time per move), and yet you throw back what I said at me?!?! My whole point is that coming up with a lower time threshold for when chess becomes chess is very problematic, and I am not going to throw out a number, just a guess at best, which is WHY throwing out such a number is almost pointless.

Jeez.... basic comprehension.

 Good job in totally ignoring the fact that Atos was not in was not in ANY WAY suggesting that 15 minutes WAS the definitive, actual shortest time control a game could be.

I suugest you go back and carefully read your original critisicm of Atos' suggestion.

Jeez.... basic comprehension.

BTW your ENTIRE post was very repetitive.

I believe in repetition and drilling to make what I say get through to 1000 rated live  chess players. Just sayin'.

OK. But that has nothing to do with the point.

I only mentioned it because you wrote "ENTIRE post" as though it contained a lot of information or something. (Hence the "BTW" at the end of the post)

Here I will simplify it further for you so that you can finally get it: coming up with a lower time threshold for when chess becomes "meaningful" or "real" is pointless, whether Atos does it, I do it or you do it. So why do it? Bullet is real chess. End of story.

Lol.

 Ps. Personal insults and attacks are often an indication that ones argument is weak, thus the need to resort to these kind of tactics.

Just sayin. 

So are you guys decided yet whether or not bullet chess is silly?

Sure it's silly - except to those who like to play it.

Go reread ALL of my posts! The onus is on the people who have decided that bullet is not real chess because of the time control - I did not propose that so I don't have to prove it. It cannot both be chess and not chess - so if they propose that it is not chess, then they both have to support this position with evidence and then tell us at what time control chess actually does become "real" chess. Which is where Atos came in. Which is where you came in. Which is where all logic went out the window.

Bullet chess is good for recognizing patterns. It's good for 'warming up' but I don't think it's worth much more than that. 

How is that logic flawed? How can defining something like when chess becomes chess be based on a guessed number?