How To Reach Above 2000 Rating In Blitz And Bullet

I saw that game from his blog, it was great, and I was very impressed with how quickly Kacparov saw through some tactics.

But Nigel had him easy, and missed the winning line late in the game to blunder and give it away.  One of those games where you're doing well / winning and building your position the whole game till the end when you lose... but hey that's blitz.

Yes. The GM's and other strong players love to play both 3 / 0 Blitz and 1 / 0 Bullet.  It's a blast to watch. It makes watching a 5 / 0 game look like a very slow game.

My question was not regarding internet chess, but OTB Bullet games. Maybe it's not practical, as it would become unclear as to what square a piece is actually on. I've seen Nakamura play 3 / 0 blitz and his placement of pieces on squares is horrible.

I think that women players like Susan Polgar have the best technique in placing chess pieces in the exact center of the square. Their physical moves are both precise and efficient. The Chess Queen - Alexandra Kosteniuk - also has excellent eye - hand coordination.

Maybe guys are just sloppy OTB chess players.

If you are talking about the bullet ratings here, they are inflated by about 300 points, maybe more. The blitz ratings here generally tend to correlate pretty closely with FIDE ratings, and are probably a little lower on average than USCF ratings.

However, the fact that the averages correlate doesn't necessarily mean that the ratings translate reliably. Actually, I think that the fact that the blitz is pretty tough to get a high rating in is largely due to factors other than the general quality of play.

Yeah, some players are bullet/blitz specialists who would do poorly in a tournament -- and some players are long time and strong tourney players who don't have the knack for online speed games... what I mean is it's going to vary between individuals, not that I don't agree with the general estimates already given.

i got a better one:

1.play good

There is a class B player here with an online rating (turn based) over 2700 so net ratings dont mean anything. 

I don't think that example is relevant, first we were not talking about turn-based and second there will be likely be a different explanation for that sort of thing.

About blitz ratings, there is a difference whether you learned to play chess by playing online blitz or you learned to play blitz by playing chess. If all you have ever played is fast online blitz and bullet then you probably couldn't expect your blitz rating to translate into OTB on long time controls. Similarly, if you only played long games in OTB and have no experience with blitz you should probably expect a lower rating in online blitz. (I mean in Live Chess, not in turn-based, where probably you should expect an inflated rating.)

To all chess.com blitzer's: If you think you are that good, try some games on icc, there you'll meet plenty off real chess players.

http://www.chessclub.com/

skogli,

we do know how to find other sites, I think.

 That's not the point, I just have the feeling that some user's on chess.com think they are much better than they really are.

-So try the real deal and find out.

To get 2000 in 5-0 blitz one place could be 1500 on a other site, so if people want's to compare an online rating, why not try to get one on a site where there is many, many players with a real life rating.

Oh, no my mistake, keep on dreaming instead.

I don't believe that any Internet site has very reliable ratings, especially one that doesn't even ban cheaters when caught but only resets their account, as I understand.

I wasn't the one that brought it up. Personally, I plan to stop playing on this site as well soon, partly due to 'real life' obligations, and only continue the forum participation.

So 1000 games in blitz is more reliable than 50 tournament games?  Well that's true in a way, as far as the individual ratings are concerned.  But which rating tests more of your chess ability?  Which one is more important to the person who has both? The answer is obvious.

You'd have to be lying to say OTB tournaments aren't more prestigious -- why would ICC brag about having a certain number of titled players?  Why not brag that you have 200 players with a rating of over 2700 on your site?  The answer is obvious

So try your best to survive more than 2000. Maybe 1min bullet game now is a trend. If you can't maintain it then try your best and don't say something bad, try one min. maybe you're in panic. he he

That's like saying, play perfect and you'll always win.

You can't compare ratings on different sites, at different time controls or OTB ratings with online ratings.  The only rating that matters is the one "you" give a crap about (if any).  If you tried to explain to a non chess player why "this" rating is more important than "that" rating, you might understand how silly it is.  

ICC isn't the be-all and end-all of anything.  Sure there are more GM's, but for the 95% of players who very rarely play titled players, that's pretty irrelevant.  I don't think my ICC rating is more accurate just because Nakamura plays blitz there too. 

So if you have one place with many weak players and one other with many strong players, wich place is the toughest one to play? Just wondering...

What does "many strong players" mean? 

What can it mean? Doh!