Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Bullet Rating vs Online rating


  • 24 months ago · Quote · #81

    gambiteer12

    In a 1-2 minute game practically every second move is a mistake. Analysis is only good if you can reflect on why you made a mistake, correlate patterns in your mistakes, and alter your thought process so as to avoid making the same error in the future. Playing and analysing long games is the most effective way to improve your chess, regardless of the time control.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #82

    gattaca

    gambiteer12 wrote:

    In a 1-2 minute game practically every second move is a mistake.

    I played some game where our first moves were not all mistakes.

    gambiteer12 wrote:

    Analysis is only good if you can reflect on why you made a mistake, correlate patterns in your mistakes, and alter your thought process so as to avoid making the same error in the future.

    Agreed. And I do that for some of my bullet games.

    gambiteer12 wrote:

    Playing and analysing long games is the most effective way to improve your chess, regardless of the time control.

    This is where we disagree. Analysing good games improve your chess, regardless of the time control.

    The fact that the game is long does not guarantee you it'll be of good quality.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #83

    AnthonyCG

    Elubas wrote:

    Well, we are always going to find GMs with strange opinions; unfortunately, GM Seirawan, I can't agree with you: Bullet assumes your pattern recognition; it doesn't teach it or reinforce it.

    As for time scrambles: Time scrambles in a long game are not as easy to compare to a short time control game as one might think. The point is that, even when you are down to your last few minutes, the fact that you have been thinking about the position for hours gives you a sense of closeness to the struggle (you have familiarized yourself with plans, the nature of the position, stuff like this), probably making it easier to find the right moves; in a blitz game, the position is happening in front of you, almost before you can fully process it, making the time scrambles of a more mindless nature, at least in my opinion.

    I don't agree. The only way that a slow game could reinforce patteren recognition and a bullet game could not is if there was some sort of time constant required for the brain to be able to recognize the patterns. And such a constant would depend entirely on the individual making generalizations impossible.

    The ability to read the position also depends on the player. If you looked at a position for 30 minutes and a GM for 1 minute he would see more than you would and be able to come up with a plan that was far more effective. It is also possible that one player could have played a position to the point in which finding a plan is easy to them and little time is required to find the right moves whereas a player that has never seen the position may need more time to find a move. This also accounts for why some players prefer to play "systems" in bullet.

    The complaints in this thread highlight weaknesses that some players may have and assumes that all players have them and that is not a good basis for an argument.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #84

    DEATHW1SH

    I believe they are totally different too my bullet i around 1000 and i lose reg to people of online 1200....me 1650.....i find it a good sharpening ex...also a bit of fun.....not to be taken too seriously unlike online!

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #85

    laith88

    I think because online chess is the real chress

    10 minutes games don't tell anything about a player

    because as you all guys know chess is too beautiful and too hard to finish in such a narrow window of time

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #86

    SmyslovFan

    I have watched top GMs play 1-minute chess. For those who don't think it's quality chess, take a look some time. Yes, there are more mistakes than in slow chess, but the quality is still extremely high.

    When I prepare for a blitz tournament I play quite a bit of bullet chess to build up my reaction time. It really does help.

    I also recommend bullet chess to reinforce pattern recognition and to work out thematic ideas in the openings. If you play ~20 games against strong opponents in bullet chess, they will give your openings a strong practical test.

    Is bullet chess the same as standard chess? Of course not. But it can be a wonderful tool! It can also be heroin. Be careful about getting addicted!

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #87

    Elubas

    To be fair though, I wonder if we only think the quality of GM bullet games is high because the game goes by too fast for us to see the mistakes! But yes, I am very impressed with what they are able to do; to explain how they do it would be impossible except for the fact that they are so familiar with what good moves look like it becomes automatic for them.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #88

    Elubas

    As far as practicing bullet for reaction time: I have played a lot of bullet, and you would think the speed would make me better at moving fast, but it actually doesn't carry over for me: I still get into tons of time trouble in time controls like 5 5, probably because I have too much faith in the increment and take my chances with making long thinks when they aren't really necessary.

    Also, for me the patterns move by so fast my brain hardly realizes they are happening and they end up being very difficult to digest. Since I believe pattern recognition is the single most important determinant of skill of all, blitz and bullet must be considered as a better way to improve based on the logic that you are exposing yourself to more chess than in slow chess; the difference though is that, though in slow chess you are looking at less chess, your mind is processing the chess that is happening much better. Quality over quantity, I say. However, practical considerations are important: since playing a classical time control game is something our schedules often don't allow, it does make sense to not take this into the extreme but instead to play shorter games like 40-60 minute games instead, so that the game doesn't take up your entire day.

    It's probably not possible to remember 50 games you played if they all happened on the same day, and even if you could, it would be impossible to do so with a satisfactory level of depth.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #89

    laith88

    yeah Elubas so true

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #90

    Rasparovov

    AnthonyCG wrote:

    You gonna answer or are you just going to deflect?

    If you think Nakamura wont checkmate you in a minute you're blind. They don't have to think to play good moves, soo many patterns and theory are already in their head ready for action. 
    He wouldn't be in the top if he couldn't checkmate someone in one minute.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nYwTWycVSM  - Carlsen winning in one minute 
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxBtrT_qZgI&feature=related  - Carlsen once again winning a 1 minute game against a GM with 3 minutes.
    Unfortunatly I couldn't find any games of nakamura playing IRL soo I thought they were good enough. 

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #91

    Elubas

    Rasparovov, what you are saying is probably true, but that doesn't change the fact that an amateur is more likely to upset a GM in bullet than they are in classical time controls.

    Think of the correlation more in ranges. Without any extra information, one would predict a GM rated 2500 to beat an FM rated 2300 in a bullet match. However, let's say that a GM can range from 2200-2700 in bullet, whereas an FM can range from 2000-2500 in bullet. It's not so incredibly difficult to find some FMs at the high end of this range, beating GMs at the low end of their range.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #92

    Flameblaze

    wbilfc wrote:

    I find the two disciplines quite different, so yes it is possible to have a large difference in your rating scores.

    Of course it is also possible that he his cheating!

    cheating? but that's not possible!

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #93

    fianchetto123

    of course its possible! Lets say my rating is 2200 and I want to play against a 1970 that I know. I lose game after game on purpose so that I can play against the 1970 with a 2050 rating. Or, I'm 2400 and there is another 2400 I know that I think I can beat. I lose all my games, challenge them as a 2100 and mortify them. Or, I lose to a bad player so that I can play a good player a lot of times as win back more rating points than I lost. Theseare all reasons for someone to cheat. Cant for the life of me think why somebody would run the risk of being banned from the site, but there you go. 

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #94

    Steinar

    fianchetto123 wrote:

    of course its possible! Lets say my rating is 2200 and I want to play against a 1970 that I know. I lose game after game on purpose so that I can play against the 1970 with a 2050 rating. Or, I'm 2400 and there is another 2400 I know that I think I can beat. I lose all my games, challenge them as a 2100 and mortify them. Or, I lose to a bad player so that I can play a good player a lot of times as win back more rating points than I lost. Theseare all reasons for someone to cheat. Cant for the life of me think why somebody would run the risk of being banned from the site, but there you go. 

    Risk of being banned? Nevermind that. You'd have to be suffering from some weird kind of mental disability to actually want to do any of the above, and this should probably be your primary concern if you find yourself in this situation.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #95

    stanhope13

    When i tried playing blitz i spent most of my time watching the clock. Never tried bullet.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #96

    MSC157

    I didn't played rated bullet for 100 years. OK, just one tournament (and only 2 games). That's why I have so big difference. I'm slowly trying to increase my blitz and standard rating.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #97

    Martin0

    I wonder what the rating difference is on bullet and online chess if we consider a game played of equal quality. A 2000 rated bullet game for example has better quality than a 1200 rated online chess game while a 1200 bullet game has worse quality than a 1200 online chess game. I know some strategies in bullet doesn't work in online chess, but the qualities of games should still be measurable.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #98

    blake78613

    eJaguar wrote:

    I can see that most players (including me) may have wide difference between their Bullet and Online rating. But in one Bullet game, I beaten one player at my rating (~1000). He made too many obvious blunders and i won easily. Amazingly, when I looked at his online rating it was 2000+ !! Can this be ??? And how? Or is this a strong indication of online chess cheating?

    Intersetingly, the player's Online game history is 26 games all won!! 

    It is a strong indication that like most people, he doesn't take bullet games seriously.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #99

    Rasparovov

    Elubas wrote:

    Rasparovov, what you are saying is probably true, but that doesn't change the fact that an amateur is more likely to upset a GM in bullet than they are in classical time controls.

    Think of the correlation more in ranges. Without any extra information, one would predict a GM rated 2500 to beat an FM rated 2300 in a bullet match. However, let's say that a GM can range from 2200-2700 in bullet, whereas an FM can range from 2000-2500 in bullet. It's not so incredibly difficult to find some FMs at the high end of this range, beating GMs at the low end of their range.

    True, but I think the question was if Nakamura could find checkmate in a 1 minute game. :)

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #100

    Scottrf

    "while a 1200 bullet game has worse quality than a 1200 online chess"

    I'm not so sure, because someone 1200 in bullet is a solid player, someone 1200 online is a rank amateur who makes all sorts of basic errors.


Back to Top

Post your reply: