Incredible Blitz vs Online Rating Disparity

I'm sure this has been brought up ad nauseam before, BUT that's just allllllll the more reason to bring it up ONE MORE TIME.

I occasionally see 2000+ rated players ( won't name names ) with blitz ratings of barely 1100.  And the 1100 coming by way of numerous games, with average opponent being 1100 and no timeouts. 

What...is....going....on..here?????  If one is THAT strong, shouldn't they be able to play reasonable blitz against 1200 rated players?? Maybe Magnus can't play blitz for crap, either...Ok, now I'm just grasping for straws.

OR a well fitting hat!!  :)

Haha.  Bullet is just mouse clicking, Brenee!  You know that!  :)

Such disparities raise questions, and even suspicions. Sometimes the difference reflects very few games in one of the categories, although I cannot comprehend how anyone could ever be under 1200 in any category and over 2000 in Online.

The best that you can do is run some tests on a database of the player's games, and if these tests confirm or increase suspicions, it is time to file an abuse report.

I've seen folks banned less than 24 hours after submitting a report. But, Chess.com does not always find my suspicions warranted.

I've run all your games. You seem clean.

and premove

At least we can rule out Dewey.

Bullet and Blitz aren't chess. They are variants derived from chess. For that matter standard chess, online chess and correspondence chess aren't chess either because in the beginning there was no clock or calendar for that matter involved. They are all different games with different ways to play them. Pool is not billiards which is not snooker. They are superficially similar but not really.

The World Championship will be played as OTB standard chess not best 4 out of 7 bullet. Reason is not that standard is better or more chessy but because it is standard and is backed by long practice.

How can that be true if the rules of blitz and standard time control are exactly the same? They are both chess. One is simply played at a faster time control. You can talk about the quality of games all day long but that doesn't somehow change the name lol. 

Bughouse, 960, giveaway e.t.c; are variants due to changes in the rules.

Well I'm willing to own up to being one of these types. I've never cheated in any way though (not to say that others don't). I do use the analysis board and game explorer fairly often and will often take a considerable time on certain moves. Getting a good online rating isn't that hard if you're willing to take the time to really think about a position and develop a good plan.

Blitz on the other hand frustrates the bejeezus out of me. I just can't seem to think fast enough. The number of games I've lost on time from a crushing position is ridiculous. Either that or making stupid mistakes from trying to play faster. I didn't start playing chess till my mid 30's and have only been playing for a few years so I suspect I just lack the intuitive feel that others might have. If anyone else has any ideas why I suck at blitz so much, please I'd love to know! :)

What are these "unwritten rules?"

They're both round. One of them is orange, and you can make apple juice out of the other. When you toss them against a wall, one makes a kind of hard sound, and the other a softer, squishier sound. And one of them features in a probably apocryphal story about Newton discovering the law of gravitation.

I think that soundly refutes the idea that you can't compare them.

Suppose someone has over 400 points difference between online and live ratings?

Whats the point? its an artificial rating.

Some peoples' brains literally shut down under the time pressure. You see it all the time. Funny when you play these people live and as soon as they play with the clock they just break.

Sometimes it is just suspicious.

There's one particular character on here. I won't mention the name either, but he has 2000 in turn based games and has played a thousand games of blitz and is 1200. But from reading his posts I think he just genuinely looks at each move like an hour on turn based games and always makes strong moves. If a lot of us put that concentration into the longer games we'd be many 100s points higher.

Also some of them start playing on this site and win lots of their opening games and chess.com gives them the inflated rating of 30-100 per win. It's possible to go up 500 points easily in just a few games (especially if the decent opponent times out). I like to check how many games they have played first before I judge them to really be a 'strong' player or not.



Peace

As many can attest to, playing blitz w/an touch screen is just plain crazy! Well, that's my excuse for an disparity in my stats. Besides, to me, even playing OTB 5min blitz is purely for fun only. Even at 15/10 live you really can't take too seriously. I mean, even though you're an average-strength player, one tends to depend on the clock and making provocative moves to put time-pressure on your opponent at faster time levels. "Classical" (whatever the classification is used nowadays) OTB games are the only true measure of one or another's chess ability, to me.

To compare apples with oranges, try this. I can see they are not the same, but both are fruits grown by farmers. I have never seen red oranges, but apple can have orange color. They taste different. Oranges contain more water. I can squeeze the juice out of an orange, but to squeeze apple juice is harder.

I think that's my description of apples and oranges in case you need some comparisons.

I think playing poorly at blitz and particularly bullet is very much down to age.  I'm mid 50s and just don't have the reaction times to play well at bullet.  As a compensation, many very good bullet players don't seem to play much better moves at slower time controls.  As a general rule though, bullet and blitz ratings seem quite a lot lower than slower time control ratings for the same player; they certainly are for me.  Also many low ranking bullet players have had much higher ratings in the past, and play very well, which I find odd.

I totally put my online rating down to taking my time with certain moves but the idea that a weak player would need to take half an hour or even an hour on every move to get a good rating is wrong. Opening moves or basic recaptures take seconds and other fairly straightforward moves can also be made fairly quickly. It's really only the critical positions where I would take half an hour or longer and this would usually result in having the next few moves figured out, not just one move. I think this is probably comparable to standard OTB time controls.

Despite the amount of time between moves in "Online" chess (heh, i have lingering issues about the name of this format of chess) i play fast. Usually within minutes when i receive an reply. When i can't submit a reply rightaway, it's usually because i'm at work or otherwise preoccupied (with an thing called, "Life")