Like one of the posters said it all comes down to personal preference. If you prefer a game with the least amount of blunders then so be it. But that doesn't make it a higher "quality" then blitz cause blitz has more blunders. I simply prefer the more dynamic and competitive gameplay. With more games and more chances and feel its more sporting.
Of course there is a correlation between accuracy and quality. Quickly adding up figures in you head will be less accurate than using a calculator and double-checking that you've entered every figure correctly. If you are making up a bill, figuring how much material to buy for some building project, balancing your checkbook, the more accurate number is better. Slapping some planks together and fastening them with whatever you can do in a hurry won't make a boat equal in quality with one built correctly, leaving you underwater. Rushing through a chemical process without accurate measurements can result in complete failure.
Similarly, trying to produce the highest-quality chess game of which you are capable requires you to play as accurately as possible.
Just to answer your poor argument regarding differences between fast and slow play, I used to play a lot of blitz and rapid-play. I played rapid-play to try to win tournaments but I much preferred 5 minute chess and could put together a good game at that time and could hold my own with people who were 200 BCF, which is the obsolete English grading system and which would be equivalent to roughly (200 + 10) x 8 +600 or 2250 FIDE to be on the safe side. They would beat me at slow-play but not at 5 mins blitz. Therefore I should be more aware than you are regarding the nature of fast chess. I don't consider bullet to be chess, incidentally. It's just a bit of fun which became popular due to GMs and IMs showing off but since there's no time to think, whereas in 5 mins blitz there is thinking time, it's all about moving pieces and pressing the clock fast. It's also just about impossible to play bullet without breaking all the rules of chess, so it isn't chess.
If bullet was nothing but playing fast, there would not be such a wide skill gap because of all the super gm's playing it and they would not be winning so consistently. The numbers and statistics on these websites simply prove you wrong. >>
That's a decent argument, so thanks for that. I wouldn't say it proves me wrong, though. The superGMs you talk about have thousands of positional patterns embedded in their memories and that's why they win and that's how they win. They just play patterns they are familiar with and divert it into a different pattern and then maybe kill the pattern if they think they can get away with it. If everyone's just playing from memory according to their abilities, it's still down to how fast they can move the pieces. So your decent argument is actually insufficient. Don't forget, GMs are playing GMs and so on. It doesn't mean there's much skill involved, compared with speed.
They are playing from experience so you could argue experience matters even more in Blitz. Just like Ziryab's Magnus quote as to where his fast intution comes from. When you say they divert patterns into different patterns thats called creativity which is more prevalent in blitz as I have also been saying. That is deviating from the most "accurate" lines of theory which imo make the game more dynamic. And even though everyone is playing from memory or "past experience" how fast they move the pieces being part of the game does not negate the fact their experience and visual skills still play a large role and as you admit is the difference between the super gm's and the average player. How fast they are moving the pieces is a much lower learning curve and is a small factor in the large skill gap between players. At least when it comes to 3 and 5 min blitz imo. Many of the Super Gm's would agree with you about Hyper Bullet though.
It's very low-level creativity. A bit like a spider that can't stop building a web and if you give it LSD, it makes crazy patterns. Or a kid building a pile of stones (very fast) only to knock it over.
Anyhow, thanks for taking the time and trouble and making the effort to answer me and to take on board some of my comments. I appreciate it, although I suspect we may be going nowhere fast. See you around and try not to drive everyone mad!