Some notice.
That is just a trolling post. I've seen many of those. People create topics with attacks against something and then leave. Usually they don't continue discussion, which obviously shows that such topics are created not for discussion, but for causing reaction. And certainly, the result is achieved, reactions have been got, as you see. The author of the topic has no arguments, nothing. Give some milk to the crying OP.
Actually I created this post just to make a complaint about bullet time controls. But we can discuss it further. Bullet does not exist in real chess. Fide ratings are three: Standard, Rapid and Blitz. There isn't any bullet. There can be very short games, in bullet fashion, but they don't affect rating. It's true that there are some very good players, even grandmasters, who play bullet, but they didn't get the master title playin bullet. The world champion is not crowned thanks to bullet games.
Ehm... it seems that we have a Nazi in this site... remembering the invasion of Poland... I think that no one wants to hear that sort of things in a chess forum!
As I understand, complaint is caused by the necessity of protection or changing some circumstances. By attacking bullet game, what do you aim? To overthrow the denomination of bullet, which consider it chess as well? So you want to encroach on the definition of chess, which says: "chess is a two-player strategy board game played on a chessboard, a checkered gameboard with 64 squares arranged in an eight-by-eight grid." Initially time does not consist in this definition, so you somehow make your own definitions without any decent arguments of its requireness. How soes FIDE's content determine the definition of chess, which is all-sufficient enough, and because also it was created a lot before FIDE?
You talk about master titles such way, as if the titles would be the main aim in chess. You don't understand the essence of the word "game". Game essence is not build on titles, but on it's usefulness. Do you want to argue on bullet usefulness? Give your line then.
I want to go to the nature of the game and its mission. If you pretend on overthrowing the bullet chess from chess's family, you must think , first of all, about its effects. If you cannot prove that bullet has no use, then you cannot cause it to fall from its position. Because by belonging to chess, bullet is indirectly showed to be an effective game with its benefit for intellectual skills. If you want to refute bullet, you must refute its any use for brain.
As it can be seen from your first comment, you say that you don't think in chess. What is "thinking" then? In bullet chess you think as well, but you have another type of thought, which, nonetheless, is still thought. Obviously, you put your own definition in this word "thinking", which leads to blurring of sense, because many people are getting caught by these sophistical misleading.
Then you distantly, and, probably, unconsciously, notice this in the words "deepness of the thought and not the rapidity to phisically make a move". First of all, you contrapose thought and physical reflexes, which is wrong, as I said in the previous paragraph. The next: why fast think cannot be useful? The thought is a difficult thing, and is shaped from a lot of micro-processes. The bullet in it's essence has just another type of micro-processes, but how does it make it have less thought in it? You add reaction, change the type, but cannot get rid of micro-operations. They stay. If they stay, bullet train your thought just as good as the long chess, but in another way, which is more good for one kind of people, and for another type of people long chess is better.
You cannot make conclusions about something's uselessness in generally, being based on yours only experience, because such conclusions can be only useful for you, but not for another people, because the method of deducing the conclusion is not based on any mass testing or research. And etc.
Nazi? Seriously? You are a Nazi, because your logic is absurd, which makes you alike Nazi ideology. Or you don't agree with me personally attacking you? Well, I can clear up this for you for deliverance of further questions. By pouncing bullet games, what do you really do? You indirectly wriggle and throw out, the first, an attack on me and all bullet players. By claiming that they do some stupid thing. But what if a person do a stupid thing, and do it often and irrevocably? So you call me and all bullet players stupid. Of course, neither me, nor others agree with that attack. So, dear Nazi, who wants to denigrate us, you will be thrown down first. Also, you said something else, but everything else you said is too ridiculous to rebut. What invasion? I think, nobody in clear mind doubts your amusingness.
Ah, ok, the phrase about Nazi and Poland invasion was not towards me. Then I cancel my last paragraph.
I can give some merit to what the OP is saying, and I agree to some degree.
So to say that bullet chess is chess or not for me it means whether for the most part it requires certain chess skills to be good at. For example when I play 1 minute bullet I try to always have awareness of where all the pieces ares, and scanning for most one move blunders. Then when I move since I have piece and one move blunder awareness I use my intuition to improve my position and trying to set up tactics against their king.
The example that I described earlier to me it is clear that I am playing chess and it very entertaining for that reason trying to combine positional and tactical ideas to win my opponent. Of course at the end some times there are time scrambles but few times determine the winner.
Now if I switched 15 secs bullet secs bullet or even 30 secs, I would not say I was playing chess. I have difficulty having piece awareness after blasting all the first moves as premoves, trying to spot some tactics which many of these are guessing your opponents premove and punishing him. Without piece awareness positional chess if ruined, and I have no time to spot non trivial tactics. For me the beauty of chess is lost there, as I do not get to experience how the ideas of chess can be combined and create something beautiful.
Of course all that depends on the skills one has, so for many people 30 secs can actually mean nice chess games putting into test each player's intuition about positional and tactical chess. But when I play this it is trash having to resort in mouse techniques every game, premove tricks and flagging my opponent, which I personally I do have find entertaining at all. And not to say I was not good at relatively speaking as I remember having 100 more rating points than my actual 1 minute rating points.
I agree with that. I thought about that somehow, and came to the most probable conclusion that the transition from long time control to fast time control can only effectively be made from the point, where your vision in long time controls is at some (varying for different level of game purposes) good point. Taking into consideration the dialectical nature of chess, we can see some kind of a parallel: to be good in words, you first need to pervade in the depth of thought. However, I see then the difference in the way these two alike things (dialectics and chess) are perfected in one's mind. The words and reality has much more variants then chess (I don't want by that underestimate the importance of chess, and I don't, because chess, thought, cannot compete with reality in the amount of combinations, can compete in the speed of brain training), so it requires more things in its analysis and passing through the brain. So I see the intuitive, fluent essence of bullet chess suitable for improving the ability in analysis of reality. And in 30 seconds chess (and in 15 seconds chess), this qualities increase, but can be (mostly) useful only for people, who have already good ground in the form of sufficient understanding of long chess.
I have no opinion on bullet chess but it is worth noting that Germany failed to defeat Poland this evening, despite SS Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler's unfounded optimism. Given Germany's dismal record (played 2, lost 2) in European campaigns (after 1870, of course), I think a draw is a good result for them.
I see many interesting bullet games from high rated players. But it is hard to improve at chess by playing with this time control, which is less enjoyable for weaker players in my opinion. I like playing it however but I feel that I don't learn from my mistakes and can fall several times into the same trap, especially when I play fast in the opening.
So it is better not to play only bullet, especially if you feel that it is a mouse run. I have improved a little bit at bullet (~500 rating points) after playing correspondence chess and some "classical" games.
Allright. Let me end this discussion by saying something based on pure facts.
1. Bullet chess IS chess according to definition of wikipedia, fide and uscf. Though bullet DOES differ a lot from normal chess.
2. Bullet DOES help you improve your chess, but not as much as other time controls (you do improve your intuition, pattern recognition, etc).
3. Chess is a game. Games are for having fun. Bullet is fun for most of the players. So what is wrong?
4. Bullet CAN be taken to competetive level. Nakamura wrote a book about it, there are regular bitcoin bullet tournaments etc.
"Water polo is not polo" - Marco.