Blitz and Bullet are spoilsport of Chess game

Rapid and Blitz are not good forms of Chess. They are for lazy and restless people. You do not even have time to think for 1 min to make a move. You don't analyse one variation, your opponent sees it - he or she wins. It is gambling. Just like the game of cards or carrom board. Or some other type of fluke game. It is a wonder how FIDE approved these type of game formats. The two types of games will never be  indicators of a player's true strength.

It seems the working capacity of chess players is tremendously on a decline. Previously, FIDE rated and national level tournaments were conducted in a span of 1 week or 2 weeks, the rounds conducted being 13+. And 1 round would take atleast 7 hours to complete. First 40 moves in 2 hours each player, 41-60 moves in next hour and sudden finish during the next 30 minutes. So each player had 3 and half hours which equalled 210 minutes of thinking time for one player. In the Rapid tournaments only 30 minutes is given for each player which is 7 TIMES less than the previous decade championships. WHY THESE THINGS GO UNNOTICED AND NOT A WORRY TO ANYBODY.

Players are more particular in making moves fast but least bothered about thinking hard and deeply.  The clock time becomes more important and the chess board becomes less important.

I agree entirely. Rapid and blitz in my opinion have a still worse consequence for an improving chess player: false intuition. A player does not develop tactical and positional intuition with a correct assessment of the outcomes. It's a bit like a player learning to handle spin bowling by batting with a tennis ball.

Come on, Aussie, come on, come on!

Most people here would not have the faintest idea about what you are talking. Most people here play or watch Baseball!

You are batting on a sticky wicket here, Mate!

That is Check Mate!  

    Hey! I felt the spirit of Chappelli. Or was it Merv the Swerve? Or Heals? Or maybe it was the fighting qualities of Javed Miandad having  a set-to with Dennis?

Now many people who are aussie have no idea about what I am talking about Well, they can all look these legends up on wilikpedia. Do it faster than a Derek Randall suicidal runout

I think the heading should read as rapid and blitz instead of blitz and bullet because Fide did not approve bullet type games as of now.  I pointed one mistake so i am wise. is it not

On a more serious note, I think that speed games 5 min are very instructive if you use them the right way.

I find that if I play without worrying about the time, I can learn a lot. If I lose on time, then so be it. I just play sound chess. If my opponent plays some move like Q to the 5th rank second move, I am against a patzer, and in 4 or 5 moves his Queen has been driven back by my developing pieces. Mate usually soon follows, as he only has Queen and probably a lonely Bishop out. No development has been done by my opponent, and he gets punished.

If I play against a good opponent, I simply play the best I can at my leisure, and if I am beaten, I then analyse the game to see where I went wrong. In other words, I use the stronger players as tutors. If they have played shallow Chess, I learn their tricks, and run my Chess program against his moves.

Great way to learn rapidly the openings.

The key is to analyse the games afterwards, and not get carried away by ths compulsion to play more games just for the heck of it.

Use the short form of the game to get a breadth of experience of all the openings which you encounter.

So, you get pleasure, practice and instruction all in one.

I do not care about the ratings of themselves, but doing this has seen my playing skill improve, and my rating as a consequence.   

Hehe.  This from a guy who has only played speed games on chess.com

Ratings are divided between your regular rating (for long games) and a "rapid" rating for the speed games.

If organizers could raise the money, I'm sure everyone would be happy to see a return of much longer games (of course no more adjournments because computers and tablebases and such).

Like I said though, they don't affect the same rating.  And any important tournament or championship uses long time controls.  It is a worry that speed games have found their way into the world championship cycle and match, but no one likes this (not fans or players).  Also upsetting is the matches are much shorter than they were in the past.  But again this is a problem of organizers raising enough money (I think).

Hello wafflemaster, I see that you have 1960+ rating in bullet type of games. My previous note might have caused you some inconvinience but I also sense that Bullet type of games increase one's presence of mind. He/she will be able to take immediate decisions in quick time. So Bullet or other fast movement chess games have advantages too. If one is walking in a garden, and suddenly a snake appears in the vicinity one cannot think for minutes or hours and make a decision. There you must be very fast or die. Another example would be a rider on a motor bike. A sudden emergent situation arises where you have to think only for milliseconds. So all types long, rapid, blitz, bullet type of chess games seem to have both advantages and disadvantages.

The way that we humans seem to process complex information is via "chunking", where you take related bits of discrete data and conceive of it as one larger entity.  For example, you are chunking when reading this sentence: the individual letters are forming words, and the words are being strung together in a grammatically parsable manner to convey an idea.

Same goes with chess - we "chunk" pieces together in certain interrelated ways, and also with certain common sequences of moves, such as seemingly forced captures/recaptures, checks, and so forth. I find that blitz chess (and to a lesser degree bullet, since it's silly) is a fun way to practice and perhaps even develop this "chunking" ability since there's no time to deconstruct ideas into literal component parts (such as "I go there, he goes  there, then I go there and then, hmm, let's see, can anything take me there?  No?  OK, then maybe he goes there, and...", and so forth). 

Again, perhaps a language analogy works here: you generally do not learn a language merely enunciating each and every discrete sound extremely slowly and out of context (except perhaps as a pronunciation exercise when learning a second language) - we, as infants at any rate, seem to learn by hearing certain syllabic sequences over and over until they become familiar as words, and then sequences of words over and over until they become familiar as sentences.  This is true in chess as well - it would be impossibly laborious to analyze a position if all moves (syllables) seemed equally important and worth looking at, so we need our instinct to guide our thought process towards moves that in combination with other moves (again, syllables) form more important concepts/combinations (words).

Another way to think of all this is to consider a quick game as everyday conversation/debate and tournament (40 moves in 2 hours or the like) time controls as a written essay: even in the essay you do not think so much about how to spell words or what word means what or the like, you generally use the extra time to think about the form and content of the essay as a whole how to express your ideas as effectively as possible.

I agree with about everything you said though.  blitz chess isn't "real" chess. :)  I was just pointing out that other people are concerned too, and there are still long tournament games.

I disagree. You might move quickly, but the move might not be the right move. If you take the time to know and learn the pattern, then the correct movement comes quicker. So if a person practiced walking in the garden and remember the correct reaction when encountering a snake, the person would more quickly make the correct move. Same goes with riding a bike.