Players that play live chess and Online Chess have a biger Online chess rating then live chess.Why is that?Look at this guys.

http://www.chess.com/echess/profile/Peaodobrado

http://www.chess.com/members/view/Crux

http://www.chess.com/members/view/JoakimBjornander

Ther lots of them

I am in the minority in that my CC rating is much lower than my live. This is due to various factors.

CC chess ratings are inflated in general, usually by 200-500 points from live or USCF/FIDE ratings. I'm not sure exactly why though.

One way you can look at it is by comparing the rating percentile. At 1630 long I am in the top 95% in that bracket.

However to make the 95th percentile in CC chess you need to be rated over 2200. I think that there are a lot more players who play CC on this site which leads to a weaker pool of competition. Also it helps that you have all the time/benefit of opening databases and what not.

 I'd expect a greater variance in CC just because of the wide range of dedication and seriousness players approach their games.

Some have a huge load and play quickly, others have relatively few and wring a lot out of the positions, others play while drunk...the catalog could go on and on...I'm not saying anything new about this.

On the other end of the spectrum is organized otb. Their preparation may be all over the board but the effort expended while at the board is pretty close-- Some move quickly while others use most of their time, but still in OTB the spectrum of effort expended is much compressed compared to CC here.

I guess the same applies to Live, but lesser so. Also, Live games are typically pretty fast compared to, say, USCF games where, as I recall, TCs such as G/30 are the dividing line between quick and standard ratings. My quick chess is weaker than standard, and there will be a chunk of the chess population that has the same issues.

G/60 is a long game here but still a much abbreviated game otb for me.

If we could compare G/90 games here with USCF ratings the difference would likely (my surmise) be less volatile and closer bracketed.

The comparison to live and USCF/FIDE is not perfect and can be dowright wrong in a lot of cases.

It seems to be fairly accurate in general, but I'm only basing that on players here who I know personally with similar USCF and live ratings. Obviously I'm not talking about 1 minute quick or 5 minute blitz either.

-People play less correspondence games, generally, so the ratings fluxuate more. And yes, my live rating is 200+ points lower than my on-line rating; there was maybe a week or two in which they were the same.

oh really?

My online is much higher than live chess. I think because in live chess i make too many blnders because of time pressures, where as in online or correspondence chess I tend to look at the latest moves, write down what i think might be the best move, put aside that game for a while, come back to it later, see if i still think the move is good, but only makes it after i've played it out a couple of times to see if my opponent can refute it, or make a next move that's better. I wish i could play better live chess, but i have a tendency to make moves too fast without seeing the consequences.

This is so not true. My online chess rating is so much lower than my live chess' one.

It seems very logical/normal to me that anyone would play better chess given more time per move, so why shouldnt one's online rating be better than one's live chess rating ? There is also the added benefit that in online (turn based play ) you can use books and databases which should also increase results/rating.

Yes but everyone else is getting the same bonuses in time and comfort.

 True , but not everyone uses these bonuses.

I am not Accusing eny one.

Analysis board, too and endgame tablebases.  Many of the very highly rated cc players are what RichieandOprah would call chess librarians.

BTW, use of endgame tablebases in Online is not permitted - though that says nothing about whether some do in fact use them.

Higher average ratings in a pool usually indicates the infusion of ratings points by either a) the method of calculating ratings - whether rating points are conserved or not (in Glicko, rating points are NOT conserved), and/or b) the nature of players ENTERING and LEAVING the rating pool (if the average strength of the players ENTERING the pool is higher than the the average strength of the players LEAVING the pool, then the remaining players have in all likelihood selectively garnered points from those leaving, raising the average rating in the pool).

I probably don't have this exactly right, but you get the ideas.

(1) Thinking speed. Younger people can think faster - as we grow old (or if we are out of touch for a long time) our mental speed falls - such a slow-brained person will do poorly in live chess, but do much better in online chess.

(2) Crutches. In online chess people are allowed to consult opening books and even opening databases (NOT endgame databases). That elevates the opening of any player to GM level!

(3) Time Constraints: On cannot spend more than a certain time per move in live. In online, there is no time pressure - you can take all the time you need.

(4) Analysis Board. Those who cannot visualise well can use analysis board to think quite a several moves (in special cases even 8-9 move variations) ahead - that person can only think 2-3 moves in live chess.

Yes, but none of that would indicate a higher average rating: half the players lose a game while the other half win the game. Those things may be involved, but can't by themselves be the reasons for an overall higher average rating for the tens of thousands of Online players.

We have to think outside the box...

The factors I mentioned can make a HUGE difference if you only ponder on it a bit...

80% of my opponents lost in the opening - would they have lost if they used opening books and databases? None of them would have lost in the opening.

What is the difference in ratings between one who thinks 1-2 moves and one who can think 8-9 moves if needed? 500-1000!

My mental speed is really slow due to age - would not I have made much results if I could think as fast as I did at 18-20 yrs age? If I had that speed I would have competed in US Open!

I agree with all your points EXCEPT for their effect on the average Online rating. They certainly affect INDIVIDUAL Online ratings. They certainly affect the overall strength of play of the entire group. But the overall strength of the group does NOT raise the overall rating of a group. Only the influx of rating points greater than the efflux of rating points - due either to a ratings formula which has the capacity or tendency for inflation, or an accumulation of rating points generated by the the exodus of lower-rated people. Indeed, that's precisely the spectrum of player I would expect to depart from the pool: lower-rated, less successful players.

Perhaps, I'm debating the wrong point, however.

DrawMaster, I believe Reb addressed your question.  Not everybody uses databases and the analysis board.  Many do.