Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

1350 in live, but 2200 in tactics trainer


  • 14 months ago · Quote · #21

    robthepek

    Yeah, I have a 2000+ tactics trainer rating, But my blitz rating is still 1400 and my bullet rating is 1300.

  • 14 months ago · Quote · #22

    Krestez

    Online Chess rating is, IMHO, the worst indicator of chess strength of all the ratings on this site. I've seen a lot of people with a live rating of 1000 and an online rating of 1800 or something around. Most people that play online chess are using computer aid. The bullet rating doesn't have anyhting to do with the online one. I suck big time at bullet and blitz (I'd rate myself at 1250-1300) even though I play decently at long time controls (1650-1700)

  • 14 months ago · Quote · #23

    SJFG

    Krestez wrote:

    Online Chess rating is, IMHO, the worst indicator of chess strength of all the ratings on this site. I've seen a lot of people with a live rating of 1000 and an online rating of 1800 or something around. Most people that play online chess are using computer aid. The bullet rating doesn't have anyhting to do with the online one. I suck big time at bullet and blitz (I'd rate myself at 1250-1300) even though I play decently at long time controls (1650-1700)

    If most people do use computer engines in correspondnece chess, then I'm very, very, very proud of myself since I'm #5,610 of 322,766 (98.2%) and I've never used an engine during games.

    Personally, I choose not to think that my opponents are using computers because I play really bad when I make the excuse that my opponents are using computers.  I know there are cheaters - I've played a guy in a DHLC quad who was banned - but I think people assume there are many more cheaters than there actually are.

  • 14 months ago · Quote · #24

    sondredanielsen

    Yes, exactly, maybe I don´t want to play you in live chess if your online rating is 2200 and my online rating is 1400. The online rating says something about the skill, right? 

  • 14 months ago · Quote · #25

    Sam97

    @Sondre. Not really... I mean if I was going to beat you every time, my rating wouldn't be only 20 points higher or whatever... If I am that much better, my rating would reflect that, instead, it says you and I win and lose to the same people.

    I don't want you to be frusterated at chess.com, they cant do that because then the peopl with larger online ratings would not be able to play many games due to the fact that he's bad a bullet!

    I hope you see my point!

  • 14 months ago · Quote · #26

    sapientdust

    @sondredanielsen: please post links to some example games where this happened to you. You will get much better feedback if we can view the games and see why you lost, look at the other player's other games, etc.

  • 14 months ago · Quote · #27

    sondredanielsen

    SJFG wrote:
    Krestez wrote:

    Online Chess rating is, IMHO, the worst indicator of chess strength of all the ratings on this site. I've seen a lot of people with a live rating of 1000 and an online rating of 1800 or something around. Most people that play online chess are using computer aid. The bullet rating doesn't have anyhting to do with the online one. I suck big time at bullet and blitz (I'd rate myself at 1250-1300) even though I play decently at long time controls (1650-1700)

    If most people do use computer engines in correspondnece chess, then I'm very, very, very proud of myself since I'm #5,610 of 322,766 (98.2%) and I've never used an engine during games.

    Personally, I choose not to think that my opponents are using computers because I play really bad when I make the excuse that my opponents are using computers.  I know there are cheaters - I've played a guy in a DHLC quad who was banned - but I think people assume there are many more cheaters than there actually are.

    I once beat a 2050-rated player in online chess. I had 1500 at that time. He gave me a comment after the game: "Nice use of computer". That was actually a huge compliment since I never use chess computers.

  • 14 months ago · Quote · #28

    sondredanielsen

    Sam97 wrote:

    @Sondre. Not really... I mean if I was going to beat you every time, my rating wouldn't be only 20 points higher or whatever... If I am that much better, my rating would reflect that, instead, it says you and I win and lose to the same people.

    I don't want you to be frusterated at chess.com, they cant do that because then the peopl with larger online ratings would not be able to play many games due to the fact that he's bad a bullet!

    I hope you see my point!

    There will be many games for them to play at their level. And even lower because not all challenges contains specification of max rating.

  • 14 months ago · Quote · #29

    steve_bute

    Krestez wrote:

    Online Chess rating is, IMHO, the worst indicator of chess strength of all the ratings on this site. I've seen a lot of people with a live rating of 1000 and an online rating of 1800 or something around. Most people that play online chess are using computer aid. The bullet rating doesn't have anyhting to do with the online one. I suck big time at bullet and blitz (I'd rate myself at 1250-1300) even though I play decently at long time controls (1650-1700)

    There is another factor: forfeits. I was here under another user-name some time ago (can't even remember what it was) and my online rating was increased significantly by forfeit wins. And because non-forfeiting opponents also have forfeit-inflated ratings, there's a pyramid effect.

  • 14 months ago · Quote · #30

    lewisself

    The thing is, im 1550 standard but TERRIBLE at blitz. like 1200-1300 I think the rating is an indication of how well you play in that time control not overall. So in theory you have the same skill as them even if their rating for online's higher, It doesnt make a difference.


Back to Top

Post your reply: