Is bullet an indicator of being a good otb player?

Sort:
MarcusSuzuki90293

It seems to me if you have a high bullet rating, then you should also be good OTB. Is this true? Is there a correlation coefficient? 

jjupiter6

No

Chuck639
MarcusSuzuki90293 wrote:

It seems to me if you have a high bullet rating, then you should also be good OTB. Is this true? Is there a correlation coefficient?

I wouldn’t say it’s conclusive.

Talking with my peers, I have more respect for rapid players because you cannot get away with certain aspects of the game (that you can in speed chess) and some skills are transferable to classical; more value in my book.

It may also depend on who you talk to as well.

CoreyDevinPerich
Absolutely not.
badger_song

What does "good" mean?This is a fairly hazy question.

Ilampozhil25

explain how it would ever be

anyone who says yes should have the burden of proof, for bullet and chess are different games (well known knowledge)

CrystalChandeliers

Being good at bullet shows suggests that you can see tactics and combinations quickly and reasonably accurately. To be a good OTB player, you don't need to be able to do this so fast, though accuracy is even more important as your opponent will have much more time to refute unsound ideas. But what you really need OTB is a good understanding of strategy which isn't really possible to demonstrate to a high standard in bullet (or even blitz) unless you are exceptionally good. Also with bullet, you get wins often enough because of your opponents' blunders. OTB with classical time controls, blunders happen of course but not often enough to help you in the long run.

In summary, being good at bullet and being good OTB require quite different (though partially overlapping) skill sets, in my opinion. I wouldn't see being good at one being necessarily indicative that you are good with the other, though you might well turn out to be so.

Rimuru
CrystalChandeliers wrote:

Being good at bullet shows suggests that you can see tactics and combinations quickly and reasonably accurately. To be a good OTB player, you don't need to be able to do this so fast, though accuracy is even more important as your opponent will have much more time to refute unsound ideas. But what you really need OTB is a good understanding of strategy which isn't really possible to demonstrate to a high standard in bullet (or even blitz) unless you are exceptionally good. Also with bullet, you get wins often enough because of your opponents' blunders. OTB with classical time controls, blunders happen of course but not often enough to help you in the long run.

In summary, being good at bullet and being good OTB require quite different (though partially overlapping) skill sets, in my opinion. I wouldn't see being good at one being necessarily indicative that you are good with the other, though you might well turn out to be so.

I agree with most what you said, but the part " Being good at bullet shows suggests that you can see tactics and combinations quickly and reasonably accurately" is kinda off... I believe it is more referring to blitz. Bullet doesn't necessarily show that you can see tactics quickly.

CrystalChandeliers
GrandRimuru wrote:
CrystalChandeliers wrote:

Being good at bullet shows suggests that you can see tactics and combinations quickly and reasonably accurately. To be a good OTB player, you don't need to be able to do this so fast, though accuracy is even more important as your opponent will have much more time to refute unsound ideas. But what you really need OTB is a good understanding of strategy which isn't really possible to demonstrate to a high standard in bullet (or even blitz) unless you are exceptionally good. Also with bullet, you get wins often enough because of your opponents' blunders. OTB with classical time controls, blunders happen of course but not often enough to help you in the long run.

In summary, being good at bullet and being good OTB require quite different (though partially overlapping) skill sets, in my opinion. I wouldn't see being good at one being necessarily indicative that you are good with the other, though you might well turn out to be so.

I agree with most what you said, but the part " Being good at bullet shows suggests that you can see tactics and combinations quickly and reasonably accurately" is kinda off... I believe it is more referring to blitz. Bullet doesn't necessarily show that you can see tactics quickly.

You're probably right, Rimuru. I hardly play bullet and don't therefore have much experience on which to base my views of it, though I do play blitz from time to time. I go more for slower time controls. I don't fair well in faster time controls and do much better OTB, owing to a greater interest in strategic thinking than is possible to exercise in blitz (or, I'm sure, bullet).

Rimuru
CrystalChandeliers wrote:
GrandRimuru wrote:
CrystalChandeliers wrote:

Being good at bullet shows suggests that you can see tactics and combinations quickly and reasonably accurately. To be a good OTB player, you don't need to be able to do this so fast, though accuracy is even more important as your opponent will have much more time to refute unsound ideas. But what you really need OTB is a good understanding of strategy which isn't really possible to demonstrate to a high standard in bullet (or even blitz) unless you are exceptionally good. Also with bullet, you get wins often enough because of your opponents' blunders. OTB with classical time controls, blunders happen of course but not often enough to help you in the long run.

In summary, being good at bullet and being good OTB require quite different (though partially overlapping) skill sets, in my opinion. I wouldn't see being good at one being necessarily indicative that you are good with the other, though you might well turn out to be so.

I agree with most what you said, but the part " Being good at bullet shows suggests that you can see tactics and combinations quickly and reasonably accurately" is kinda off... I believe it is more referring to blitz. Bullet doesn't necessarily show that you can see tactics quickly.

You're probably right, Rimuru. I hardly play bullet and don't therefore have much experience on which to base my views of it, though I do play blitz from time to time. I go more for slower time controls. I don't fair well in faster time controls and do much better OTB, owing to a greater interest in strategic thinking than is possible to exercise in blitz (or, I'm sure, bullet).

You are the same as me, I don't play speed chess a lot. I prefer long time controls.

ShikshaWithPraveen
MarcusSuzuki90293 wrote:

It seems to me if you have a high bullet rating, then you should also be good OTB. Is this true? Is there a correlation coefficient?

Being good at Bullet has nothing to do with OTB.

All you essentially need is a fast mouse / good internet connection and speed.

I've played enough bullet chess to tell you that it is not real chess. Your OTB skill depends on your ability to study the game at a deeper level that would involve selecting the right opening repretoire's, looking at games from the database of GM's and learning ideas from them, visualising the board correctly by regularly practicing your tactics and other calculations.

CrystalChandeliers

The joke going around is that, unlike with slower time controls, you often find the Botez Gambit in blitz, but it's only in bullet that you find the Botez Gambit Declined.

paper_llama
MarcusSuzuki90293 wrote:

Is there a correlation coefficient?

Yes, of course.

-

MarcusSuzuki90293 wrote:

Is bullet an indicator of being a good otb player?

No.

BestChessPlayer123321

nah, bullet relies more on moving fast and less on critical thinking

ShikshaWithPraveen

Imagine playing bullet OTB. It is just chaos. I once tried it with my friend, and it did not go well. All the pieces fell onto the ground and we forgot where the squares where the pieces were meant to be put back on.

SirRM23Divergent

My two strongest areas are OTB and bullet, while I'm weaker at blitz...

Ilampozhil25
paper_llama wrote:
MarcusSuzuki90293 wrote:

Is there a correlation coefficient?

Yes, of course.

to those who dont get the joke, the coefficient is 0 (or whatever means that there is no correlation idk)

-

MarcusSuzuki90293 wrote:

Is bullet an indicator of being a good otb player?

No.

SirRM23Divergent
Ilampozhil25 wrote:
paper_llama wrote:
MarcusSuzuki90293 wrote:

Is there a correlation coefficient?

Yes, of course.

to those who dont get the joke, the coefficient is 0 (or whatever means that there is no correlation idk)

-

MarcusSuzuki90293 wrote:

Is bullet an indicator of being a good otb player?

No.

not a good joke lol

correlation coefficients are between -1 and 1, 0 = no coefficient, -1 = perfect -ve correlation, 1 = perfect positive correlation

i would say this one is about 0.3, weak correlation

Jenium

There is not a strong correlation. I agree with Crystal. Bullet is mainly about spotting simple tactics quickly. And of course being good with the mouse. OTB you also have to know positional ideas, endgames and above all you need to be able to calculate lines correctly. That's why, for example, some streamers are 2200 in bullet, but barely above 1700 in slow chess.

Ilampozhil25

people forget what lol means

#19 is laughing at "not a good joke"