"But in atomic even if opponent is good, he cal [can] lose in 5 moves"
No, this is an unjust statement. Atomic has clear opening theory developed by every different player. If a player doesn't know their mainlines well enough, they cannot be considered a good player to begin with. It's natural for players to lose in 5 moves but it is directly influenced by the player's lack of skill and / or experience.
We should be optimizing for pearls, not sand. Therefore, while your point will be considered, with all due respect I don't think making an exception for lightning atomic will justify itself.
While at it, try to find a game of rated lightning atomic I've played that I've lost in under five moves. lichess.org/@/Unihedron/search?perf=14
No, this is an unjust statement. Atomic has clear opening theory developed by every different player. If a player doesn't know their mainlines well enough, they cannot be considered a good player to begin with. It's natural for players to lose in 5 moves but it is directly influenced by the player's lack of skill and / or experience.
We should be optimizing for pearls, not sand. Therefore, while your point will be considered, with all due respect I don't think making an exception for lightning atomic will justify itself.
While at it, try to find a game of rated lightning atomic I've played that I've lost in under five moves. lichess.org/@/Unihedron/search?perf=14