lichess.org
Donate

#22: What I Talk About When I Talk About Bullet

Yeah I’d say classical has helped my chess immensely and so has rapid (online rapid a lot due to the fact that it’s a mix of quality but you still get enough time to play and learn from more games)

Yeah I’d say classical has helped my chess immensely and so has rapid (online rapid a lot due to the fact that it’s a mix of quality but you still get enough time to play and learn from more games)

I clicked on your post because "The Shallows" in the picture is a book I enjoyed... And I read your blog post... It didn't disappoint either! Thanks!

I clicked on your post because "The Shallows" in the picture is a book I enjoyed... And I read your blog post... It didn't disappoint either! Thanks!

I strongly agree with the author; but here is a big question:

If bullet (or maybe blitz) skills are not directly indicating skills of a player in chess; why masters and strong players have a high rating in bullet too?

I strongly agree with the author; but here is a big question: If bullet (or maybe blitz) skills are not directly indicating skills of a player in chess; why masters and strong players have a high rating in bullet too?

Yes I agree with the points in the blog. It's just unfortunate that there aren't more OTB opportunities where I live. Perhaps bullet is a drug that should only be consumed in moderation, so it doesn't affect your judgement for "proper" chess. I am a slow thinker (slower than most as someone once said!) so I'll stick mainly to the slower time controls and focus on trying to improve the quality of my play.

Yes I agree with the points in the blog. It's just unfortunate that there aren't more OTB opportunities where I live. Perhaps bullet is a drug that should only be consumed in moderation, so it doesn't affect your judgement for "proper" chess. I am a slow thinker (slower than most as someone once said!) so I'll stick mainly to the slower time controls and focus on trying to improve the quality of my play.

"...the low quality, of bullet games was highlighted for me..."
Telling it like it is. Initially bullet and blitz ratings were simply transferred from classical time control ratings. We all know two 2700s playing bullet will be less accurate than two 2500s playing rapid. Bullet ratings are helpful in the sense of comparing human players, just like chess960 ratings are (which are comparatively deflated, partly due to bullet ratings being mixed with slower time controls) but are way inflated compared to accurate play. Computers however lose comparatively little strength at faster time limits, giving the lie to human bullet and, to a lesser extent, blitz ratings.

"...the low quality, of bullet games was highlighted for me..." Telling it like it is. Initially bullet and blitz ratings were simply transferred from classical time control ratings. We all know two 2700s playing bullet will be less accurate than two 2500s playing rapid. Bullet ratings are helpful in the sense of comparing human players, just like chess960 ratings are (which are comparatively deflated, partly due to bullet ratings being mixed with slower time controls) but are way inflated compared to accurate play. Computers however lose comparatively little strength at faster time limits, giving the lie to human bullet and, to a lesser extent, blitz ratings.

@Chesss-Cing said in #4:

I strongly agree with the author; but here is a big question:

If bullet (or maybe blitz) skills are not directly indicating skills of a player in chess; why masters and strong players have a high rating in bullet too?

The article states that while being good at classical chess helps your buller skills, it doesn't work the other way round (although the writing is a bit messy in that paragraph).

I agree with this idea.

@Chesss-Cing said in #4: > I strongly agree with the author; but here is a big question: > > If bullet (or maybe blitz) skills are not directly indicating skills of a player in chess; why masters and strong players have a high rating in bullet too? The article states that while being good at classical chess helps your buller skills, it doesn't work the other way round (although the writing is a bit messy in that paragraph). I agree with this idea.

Seeing something quick is quite valuable. Being too quick in the other modes is the best discovery I would report back with so far.

Seeing something quick is quite valuable. Being too quick in the other modes is the best discovery I would report back with so far.

I completely agree but I will keep playing bullet exclusively

I completely agree but I will keep playing bullet exclusively

@WanoBanano said in #7:
@Chesss-Cing said in #4:

The article states that while being good at classical chess helps your buller skills, it doesn't work the other way round (although the writing is a bit messy in that paragraph).

I agree with this idea.

Good question—I guess high-rated players are relatively likely to have played some bullet (or blitz which is close) on the way to improving their chess, too, apart from just the skill perspective.
Thanks for the feedback on the writing too ;-)

@WanoBanano said in #7: @Chesss-Cing said in #4: > The article states that while being good at classical chess helps your buller skills, it doesn't work the other way round (although the writing is a bit messy in that paragraph). > > I agree with this idea. Good question—I guess high-rated players are relatively likely to have played some bullet (or blitz which is close) on the way to improving their chess, too, apart from just the skill perspective. Thanks for the feedback on the writing too ;-)