Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Why are the blitz and standard ratings so much lower, and the players stronger??

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #41


    piphilologist wrote:

    Well my blitz and standard ratings are both 2033 , my online is only 1874.

    This is because i do not take the online games seriously and tend to move quicker than most people. If I took online chess seriously i  could probably get to 2100 or 2200.

    I agree that the online ratings tend to be 200-300 points higher than live ratings in general.

    Also I have noticed in live chess whereas a 1300 player in blitz is close in strength to a 1300 player in standard, there is a huge difference between 2100 blitz and 2100 standard. This is because above about 1800 standard most of the players are cheating. And even titled players tend to be only rated around 1800 standard. the only reason my standard rating is over 2000 is because in standard I only play a computer i know how to beat giving me an artifically high rating.

    It's hard to take the game seriously when you let a computer play it for you Wink

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #42


    Nice thread,

    Is it better then to play more blitz/standard to really improve, and to get a feel (around 200-300 points lower than UCFC) for how you stand in terms of rating?

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #43


    I believe the blitz ratings are ~300 points lower than online ratings on chess.com.

    Mostly, I think this is because there are some people who only play online, who are pretty weak - not slamming people, just the facts - and this elevates the numbers.  (My online chess record is 35-2-4.  I am not that good.) 

    I suspect the blitz ratings are closer to an OTB USCF rating, but they may be inflated, too. (My blitz rating is 1630.  It has been years since I had a USCF rating, but I think it would be lower probably.)

    My bullet rating is 1550.  To me, bullet inevitably turns into a clickfest at some point.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #44


    It's interesting to read this thread, where everyone accepts as true that blitz and standard ratings are deflated compared to online ratings, and are close to OTB ratings, but on another thread, the mere suggestion that such a thing is possible is treated with vitriol.

    I agree with the posters on this thread that blitz and standard ratings are on average ~200-300 points lower than correspondence ratings, and that they are more indicative of over-the-board ratings than correspondence ratings would be. Of course, there are plenty of outliers, but generally, it is possible to compare ratings even in different populations and predict about how a person would perform OTB. 

Back to Top

Post your reply: