This argument keeps on surfacing, doesn't it? The difference in mean ratings depends on so many factors, that engaging arguments can be had regarding its causes until the cows come home (or perhaps even longer than that).
For grins, I'll add my datum: 1600-ish in Live, 1900+ in Online.
But regarding the title of this thread, I don't play turn-based (any more) because I can't remain interested in any single contest for more than 30 minutes.
What a terrible stupid post. Your parents should be ashamed of you.
Aahh arrogance and stupidity all in one package. How efficient of you.
Ziryab a turn based player with a rating of 1384 would play at the same level as a live player of 1187. The actual number is meaningless.
for all i know is that i dropped down in my rating quite a bit, its not that i cannt play chess, but work takes my concentrated time. When i was good in chess i had no job, as i had lots of time. I've seen this happen to friends here too. So to me actualy it doesnt mean anything anymore. I only have doubts about some peole with "too" high ratings (dont they have a job?), but i dont care, i play chess to enjoy it.
Life chess is like an action movie, while turn based chess is like visiting a theatre. Yeah Chess is realy ideal to waste time in a plesent way
Ziryab a turn based player with a rating of 1384 would play at the same level as a live player of 1187. The actual number is meaningless.
You assume that the mean (or average) in both pools reflects the same level of play. It almost certainly does not.
Given that you claim a Canadian OTB rating in the mid-1800s, but are better than 99.2% of those playing Live Standard on Chess.com, you should know better. If you believe, however, that 1852 CFC is equivalent to 2400+ FIDE, you might rationally disagree.
You are much nearer the top in your Chess.com pool than in your national federation.
The more time that is put into a game the higher the quality comes out of it... and the more knowledge you can gain.
OTB is not better because its the "real" version, its possibly better due to the fact that theres no way to play fair tournaments at a high level in corr. anymore.
either way, corr. chess is one of the best ways to improve, if you dont want to play it dont.. just dont discrespect those who do.that is my take.
Arguments that can't be proven are often emotional garbage...
Serious chess players want to improve their skill not their ratings. As a Live chess player you are more concerned towards ratings and winning, but CC players are more concerned about their quality of chess.
My English teacher would laugh in my face if I made a baseless argument like that. Not only can you not prove this statement, you also try to group players in categories which is ridiculous in itself. All live players care about winning? Sounds like "fanboyism..."
If you cannot acknowledge this fact, you should probably not be criticising.
What you state is not a fact because it cannot be proven. So there goes that...
Edit: For others who are interested to know, I have lost most of my live chess games in openings and timeouts; and have never played a pawn endgame in blitz; and never calculated a 15 move variation in Live chess.
And yet you haven't risen above that level. Hmm.... All the games I'm playing are very tough so I don't know who you're playing.
Good point you raised about English and fanobyism. As a Live chess player you are more concerned" Does you sound "all" to you. Geesh.. I should be more specific by saying "YOU". You probably missed my previous comment which was directed towards him. My comment was directed towards deepshredder who was so critical about CC players and not all live chess players.
You did not make the same statement towards a host of people who label CC players as pathetic and going after ratings, why me. Looks like you are also one of those guys around jealous of CC players having higher ratings. For heaven's sake, forget the ratings. Enjoy your chess and stop labelling people.
And talking about me rising above a level, your are 100 points below me in Live Chess-Long, 300 points below me in Live Chess-Blitz and 500 points below me in Online Chess. Take that in you airhead.
I play both live and turn-based, but most people play turn-based because one: they don't have the time, and two: they know they will be bugged by someone else, so they wouldn't want to risk their rating for somebody else (not that that someone is unimportant).
Getting back to the original poster's question, now that we've cleared the air on one of his unfortunate assumptions, perhaps those of us that play turn-based can explain its appeal.
Several have noted the convenience. A few minutes now and then are sufficient to keep several high quality games going.
Improving one's OTB skills in another drawing feature.
Almost a year ago I wrote:
One of the pleasures of turn-based and correspondence chess is the assumption that players will be using their books and databases, even when engines are not allowed. A player can buy the latest monograph on an opening, or create a deeply annotated electronic "book," then enter a thematic tournament in that opening. I learned some new lines and generally became much more comfortable playing both sides of the closed Spanish as a result of such an event four years ago. I did the same with the Reti, and I've played in thematic tournaments in openings with which I'm relatively uncomfortable or even almost wholly unfamiliar. It's a good way to get practical experience while learning a new opening. (See "Game Load: Turn-Based Chess")
I've been playing online chess since 1998, and turn-based since 2003. Before turn-based, I played correspondence by postcard and email. I've played far more games live. My database excludes bullet, as they contain too much junk, but anything 3 0 or longer gets saved. My online database now exceeds 45,000 games. This online play has contributed in no small part to the increase of ~400 ELO in my USCF rating. The online blitz may have slowed my progress, except that I'm fairly certain that I'll never see anything OTB openings-wise that I have not faced online. But, if I face something new in turn-based, I learn how it should be met. In blitz I fly by the seat of my pants.
I've played hundreds, perhaps many hundreds, of so-called standard live games with time controls up to game/30. In general, I find that if I am staring at a computer screen, something must be happening there. I have minimal tolerance for waiting several minutes at a time over several hours for my opponent to move, as I do in OTB. I enjoy 15-20 minute games with an increment up to three seconds. Anything slower and live chess needs to be face to face.
I've played hundreds, perhaps many hundreds, of so-called standard live games with time controls up to game/30. In general, I find that if I am staring at a computer screen, something must be happening there. I have minimal tolerance for waiting several minutes at a time over several hours for my opponent to move, as I do in OTB. I enjoy 15-20 minute games with an increment up to three seconds. Anything slower and live chess needs to be face to face.
Lol if you played face to face with me you would have to endure a lot of smoke.
If anything, playing longer games seems more comfortable over the internet, you can do other things while it is your opponent's turn. Disconnects used to be a problem but now they are less frequent and there is the reconnect function.
@deepshredder Your comment "OTB chess is by far the most legitimate form of chess..." intrigues me. Are you referring to OTB before the introduction of the clock when players might take hours to make a single move; pre-computer OTB when games were adjourned, and players and their seconds would spend the night analyzing the position, or present-day OTB where players spend hours in front of a computer screen studying and analyzing games prior to tournaments?
Ziyrab wrote:
Notions of inflation and deflation of ratings presume an error: ratings are comparable. They are not. Ratings have internal consistency within any given pool. They serve as measures of self-improvement, and guides to finding appropriate opponents. Comparing live chess ratings to turn-based cannot establish that one is inflated, or the other deflated. Neither is "real" as a standard against which the other might be measured.
*But if the same people have lower ratings by about 300 points in Live Chess than in online (as seems to be the case with most who play both), then this does provide a standard by which they can be compared. Surely you are not suggesting that they somehow magically become weaker players when they enter "Live Chess."
I've played hundreds, perhaps many hundreds, of so-called standard live games with time controls up to game/30. In general, I find that if I am staring at a computer screen, something must be happening there. I have minimal tolerance for waiting several minutes at a time over several hours for my opponent to move, as I do in OTB. I enjoy 15-20 minute games with an increment up to three seconds. Anything slower and live chess needs to be face to face.
Lol if you played face to face with me you would have to endure a lot of smoke.
If anything, playing longer games seems more comfortable over the internet, you can do other things while it is your opponent's turn. Disconnects used to be a problem but now they are less frequent and there is the reconnect function.
I can smoke foul cigars when the need arises. In my country, however, it has become illegal in most areas to smoke indoors.
A six hour long game in an OTB tournament provides plenty of opportunity to watch other games, blow wads of cash at the vendor table, drink and pee, and has an ambiance lacking in the comfort of my office. Online offers many options, too. A few years ago I played several g/15 games simultaneously by playing on several sites. Then I learned that I could be violating the rules of the site in this manner. When I play live, I rarely multitask, except that I'll cook and eat breakfast during a G/15 some mornings.
I like the natural, obvious convenience of taking my time to make a move online.
Live chess is crazy chess, imo of course...
Ziryab a turn based player with a rating of 1384 would play at the same level as a live player of 1187. The actual number is meaningless.
You assume that the mean (or average) in both pools reflects the same level of play. It almost certainly does not.
Given that you claim a Canadian OTB rating in the mid-1800s, but are better than 99.2% of those playing Live Standard on Chess.com, you should know better. If you believe, however, that 1852 CFC is equivalent to 2400+ FIDE, you might rationally disagree.
You are much nearer the top in your Chess.com pool than in your national federation.
This is about how live corresponds to CC, not how live corresponds tto FIDE. That said if you think that .8% of all FIDE plyers are rated 2400 you are insane.
I claim that I would be in the 95th - 98th percentile on chess.com playing CC. This would make my rating smewhere between 2100 and 2200. Again. Do you belive that 2% of all OTB players are above 2100? Obviously not, CC ratings on this site are simply higher then OTB or live ratings. NOT because the players are stronger.
I wouldn't add to the thread except that I didn't see one of my main reasons for preferring turn-based: I see many more games. It's fun to have a lot of different games going and to actually see different lines play out.
It also allows time for actual chat with opponents or other friends online -- most live games don't have that leisurely pace.
All in all, I am glad that a single site offers both means of play and I wouldn't argue for or against either as an exclusive way of playing.
Ziryab a turn based player with a rating of 1384 would play at the same level as a live player of 1187. The actual number is meaningless.
You assume that the mean (or average) in both pools reflects the same level of play. It almost certainly does not.
Given that you claim a Canadian OTB rating in the mid-1800s, but are better than 99.2% of those playing Live Standard on Chess.com, you should know better. If you believe, however, that 1852 CFC is equivalent to 2400+ FIDE, you might rationally disagree.
You are much nearer the top in your Chess.com pool than in your national federation.
This is about how live corresponds to CC, not how live corresponds tto FIDE. That said if you think that .8% of all FIDE plyers are rated 2400 you are insane.
I claim that I would be in the 95th - 98th percentile on chess.com playing CC. This would make my rating smewhere between 2100 and 2200. Again. Do you belive that 2% of all OTB players are above 2100? Obviously not, CC ratings on this site are simply higher then OTB or live ratings. NOT because the players are stronger.
I haven't called you insane.
I don't know the percentiles of FIDE ratings, but would expect some skewing from the fact that until the past few years, 2000 was the FIDE floor for initial rating (it was possible to drop slightly below 2000 after first achieving that level). FIDE lowered their floor to 1600, and they may have dropped in further more recently. Even so, 0.8% is a more reasonable guess than anything you've offered.
I've read several places that master reflects the upper 1% of competitive chess players. I think I was clear that 1852 CFC does not represent a similar achievement.
Exeter Chess Club's summary is helpful in this regard. (Once again, I am offering data from credible sources to counter your impressionistic ramblings.)
With OTB ratings in the mid-1800s, you and I are better than 88% of chess players. But, in live chess here, we are in the top 1-2%. That Chess.com's live feature attracts but a fraction of competitors from the upper tenth is more than abundantly clear. As we are both (presumably) in the uper 5% in turn-based on this site, it is equally clear that Chess.com attracts a somewhat stronger pool of players to this form of chess.
With OTB ratings in the mid-1800s, you and I are better than 88% of chess players. But, in live chess here, we are in the top 1-2%. That Chess.com's live feature attracts but a fraction of competitors from the upper tenth is more than abundantly clear. As we are both (presumably) in the uper 5% in turn-based on this site, it is equally clear that Chess.com attracts a somewhat stronger pool of players to this form of chess.
It may indeed be that the 'top level' (FM and above) is better represented in Online than in Live. But this does not enable us to generalize on the 'pool' as a whole as you do. There are people who play in both and their ratings can be compared.
That the highest blitz rating in Live chess is below 2500 should probably be expected although there are in fact IMs and FMs in Live Chess. The highest rated player in Online is above 2900 which suggests that he is significantly stronger than the current World's Fide champion. I am skeptical that the appeal of the Online chess here is quite that powerful.
It may indeed be that the 'top level' (FM and above) is better represented in Online than in Live. But this does not enable us to generalize on the 'pool' as a whole as you do. There are people who play in both and their ratings can be compared.
That the highest blitz rating in Live chess is below 2500 should probably be expected although there are in fact IMs and FMs in Live Chess. The highest rated player in Online is above 2900 which suggests that he is significantly stronger than the current World's Fide champion. I am skeptical that the appeal of the Online chess here is quite that powerful.
I am not generalizing without support. You offer only piecemeal support for your assertions. A generalization that holds true at the highest levels might be reflected at lower levels. To suggest that a reverse generalization holds true below candidate master, to wit, that Live chess here has better appeal than turn-based defies common sense. If you produced som data to support it, we could entertain it for the sake of further discussion.
Almost all websites have ratings higher than FIDE, USCF, CFC, etc. The ratings are valid within their pool, not outside of it.
A 2900 rating here means only that the player is stronger than a 2700 here. It means nothing with respect to Magnus Carlsen's 2801 or Vishy Anand's 2788.
Julio Becerra is currently 2541 FIDE (peaked at 2614 earlier this year) and 2528 in turn-based here (peaked at 2805). He does not play Live chess here. His lowest rated loss is to Reb, the long-time correspondence chess player Rex Blalock (2612, USCF 2236). Rex does not play Live here.
I play both, it's just that I get my live chess somewhere else.
Still the clearest explanation. The rest is details in support or distracting noise in opposition.
I play in Live Chess not turn-based because 1. I think that in turn-based there is more cheating and 2. [snip--personal tastes]
That's where generalizing to the pool as a whole without supporting data began. You offer no credible basis for suspicions of turn-based over live, and several posters have explained how easy in might be (assuming that Erik and company are not vigilent--they are!) to cheat in live.
The average rating in live chess here is ~200 below that of turn-based. I suspect that the most significant cause, but not the only cause, is that live chess here appeals to more casual and weak players, while it fails to appeal to serious and strong players.
No. This makes no sense. The average live rating is actually much much deflated from the average CC rating (by about 400 points).
However a 2000 CC player is not a 2000 USCF player, and when said player goes to live he's often somewhere between 1600-1700.
That's because there are more strong players at lower levels in LIVE CHESS and USCF chess.
I'm using data, not impressions. The difference is 200, almost exactly. My data is accurate, as is my analysis. I've stated clearly that ratings cannot be compared; all assertions rooted in comparisons must first establish that there is a basis for comparison.
"Strong" is in the mind of the beholder. When FIDE grants a title, the recipient should be regarded as strong by all those without the same or higher title. I see few FIDE titled players in Live on this site (the strongest I've played is a weak FM--he earned the title in his youth and no longer plays OTB actively). I have played a FIDE titled GM in turn-based who is in his prime and still improving in OTB.
Live standard:
Rating Distribution
Live blitz:
Rating Distribution
Turn-based standard:
Rating Distribution
1384