The devolution of blitz chess.

Bullet is more fun in some ways because you get to come up with plans and play out the moves, and your opponent doesn't get the chance to think about how to stop you.

From what I have watched of the highest levels of bullet chess (e.g., Magnus vs Alireza, Magnus vs MVL, etc.), top players *do* realise both what their opponents are planning and how to stop their opponents plans even in such a short timeframe, and the real test becomes one of judging what to prioritise and when. So between top GMs, bullet is much more akin to real chess than it is between mere mortals like you or me.

#11 Top GMs play bullet so well, because of the countless hours they have spent on classical chess and tedious analysis of similar positions.

@Eleuthero Are you shaming Bullet chess or GMs. Here i the thing Bullet chess will make you improve in seeing quick tactics. And It can help you ONB with time pressure. When I started Playing chess I thought 1 min was so fast. But now that I have played alot of it. And it does not seem so fast. But I know that the only way you can improve in chess is through Classical chess and rapid chess. Blitz is kinda in the middle.

To me bullet is fun but not interesting, while classical is interesting. And blitz is neither...I think if I was master level I'd play more blitz thou.

Tal even sneaked out of the hospital where he was admitted for treatment just to play a blitz tournament.
en.chessbase.com/post/sally-and-misha-epilogue

Pro tip: count the likes of posting #1 and see who is wagging the dog.

Pro tip 2.0: try to ask top players why they like to play bullet. Start here lichess.org/player/top/200/bullet

I suggest to everyone not having a level 2000 rating in lichess (rapid or classical) and even stronger, especially those like me not very discplined and subject to temptations, to only play long games ( >60 minutes four each player). The temptation once u play few blitz or rapid is too strong.
You will improve a lot by only playing long games ( actually i play a lot of 60 +30 in a real board at my house OTB transposing in the computer), analyse the games, make some tactics puzzles ( not the puzzle rush in chess dot com). Play these games very seriously. This way by doing a lot of games very serious, its sure u will improve deeply ur playing style.

In my opinion the quality versus time quotient is not linear, it's something exponential connected with mechanics of moving. And premoving is poker basically.

So it probably doesn't matter much whether you play 1 or 3 hours but 1 or 3 minutes is a different story with a certain probability. Something like this, don't take it literally.

imgur.com/a/CrpEafY

@Sarg0n ... Yes, I am "shaming" GMs for their love of bullet chess. The masters of the 1950s through 1980s would have, too. The fastest time control back then was 5 minutes. There was no 3|0, 1|0, or even 3|2. I think bullet and hyperbullet demean the game itself. You have to admit that even GMs routinely drop material in bullet/hyperbullet and there's no "planning" per se. It's just move-on-reflex and usually to set up a one or two move cheapo. Bullet and hyperbullet are an agreement between two chess players to play the least deep form of the game.

I also believe that pre-move shouldn't be allowed at all. No one can play a move in 0.1 seconds OTB so why should they be allowed to do that here or on any chess website? I think chess has devolved in the last two decades. The preference for ridiculous time controls reflects badly on players. Also, in classical chess at the highest levels, the Ruy and the Queen's Gambit are so vastly overplayed that the amount of variety in the games has immensely decreased.

As I said on another thread, Vladimir Kramnik is correct. The game needs to be changed to decrease draws and increase the variety of the game at the highest levels. Kramnik's no-castling version of chess might be a good start.