the numbers.
A drawn game can be won in Blitz because of flagging, this is way harder to do in Rapid. Therefore more game should be drawn in Rapid then in Blitz at high level that is. Therefore you will see some people have way higher rating in Blitz because they are really good at both chess but also winning drawn games.
A draw is less points and can even give negative points towards rating.
Not some of us my friend. Most of us. But that doesn't mean playing slower games will make you better at classical which is the typical lie and false expectation most new players are fed here which leads them to becoming frustrated and quitting.
How do you expect to get better at classical if not by playing slower games? Obviously you have to study and analyze and etc but if you don't try to apply that knowledge of your studying and analysis on the board in a game you won't get better.
Also, playing classical doesn't hurt your blitz lol it's quite the opposite actually, it just helps. Unless the majority of masters and coaches who say that in order to get better at chess you should play classical and really think through your moves are wrong. It's just a matter of getting in the right mindset. Most players when they are playing a lot of classical or rapid and switch to blitz or bullet it takes a couple of games to adjust to the rhythm but then they'll play good as they used to play whatever time format it is they're playing. Sometimes you have days where you're playing better, sometimes there are days you are playing worse. Sometimes you tilt and drop a lot of points. It's normal and happens to everyone. Doesn't mean anything.
Any skill you want to master you first do it slow before doing it faster. When you first learn how to drive you don't hop on a highway. When you first learned how to write you couldn't do it as fast as you do now. A piano player when first learning will play it slower. A basketball when first learning how to dribble will do so slower. A chef handles a knife much faster and with much more accuracy than when he did when he started cooking. A painter can paint much faster compared to the first time he held a brush. A dancer when learning a new choreography will run it slower a few times to get it right. An experienced fast-food cashier will type in your order much faster than he did his first week on the job. The list goes on and the same goes for chess.
This is a simplified example, but for instance, up to 500ish rating if you know the moves, basic checkmating patterns, very basic strategy and very basic everything you should be able to win a few games. Then from 500-1000-ish rating you need to stop hanging pieces, and improve your boardvision and maybe know some basic tactics to win. From 1000-1500 you need to improve tactically and have at least basic opening knowledge and an idea of what a winning endgame looks like. After you practiced that, learned it and digested it well you'll be able to recognize these patterns faster and transfer that knowledge to shorter time formats and be able to apply that knowledge much quickly, hence improving your blitz rating. From 1600-2000 you'll need to have a much better understanding of positional play, weak squares, pawn structures, etc. The best way to do so is studying and applying it to your games, and the best way to apply is to calmly think it through in a game. Can you do that playing only blitz? Yes, most likely, but it will take a lot longer than if you study it the right way right and play slower time formats. Technically even blitz can help you improve your rapid a little, just by being exposed to chess. Heck, watching agadmator or whatever can help you a bit as well, but it's far from ideal or the best way to do it. In a blitz game you don't have the time to remember everything you learned and consider whether it works or not. So your learning is harmed. Slower time formats allow you to practice your calculations better and absorb the knowledge better. "When you find a good move, look for a better one" - Lasker.. In blitz the moves are much more superficial, you don't have time to look for a better one.
Now, obviously there are somewhat different strategies when playing blitz, especially online, like flagging, and playing more superficial, finding a good move and just going for it instead of looking for a better one, etc etc, there's more intuition involved and intuition comes from experience. But once you get used to it you'll plateau a lot faster than if you were practicing it the right way, which is by studying, puzzles, looking at master games, etc and then considering all you've learned while staring at a board trying to apply all you've learned before making a move. And with repetition you'll recognize all patterns faster and that will translate to your blitz game and you will improve your blitz rating a lot faster than if you were only trying to apply your knowledge from studying, puzzles and analysis in blitz games only. I guarantee you the vast majority of players on this website above 2500, if not 100% of them, have played countless classical games.
Now, which one you rather play and have more fun playing it's entirely up to you and no one else's business. But saying that playing slower time formats doesn't improve classical or saying that playing classical hurts your blitz is complete nonsense. As I said, maybe for a couple of games until you get the groove back, but playing slower time formats will always do more good than harm for your overall chess and that is a known fact.
Practice doesn't make it perfect. Practice makes it permanent. Perfect practices makes it perfect.
How precise your calculations are, make you more deadly in chess, blitz is very hard cuz you have only less time to play it, my blitz is 900, rapid 1500, so strong players in rapid might have less in blitz, and they play more blitz and become faster in calculations, so they are somehwhat strong in blitz, No biggie, play slow games......, until you are confidence you are good at chess
I am not yet confident
How precise your calculations are, make you more deadly in chess, blitz is very hard cuz you have only less time to play it, my blitz is 900, rapid 1500, so strong players in rapid might have less in blitz, and they play more blitz and become faster in calculations, so they are somehwhat strong in blitz, No biggie, play slow games......, until you are confidence you are good at chess
I am not yet confident
But you got to practice blitz to, you have a total of 62 blitz games on your account, that is close to nothing. If you are 1500+ In Rapid your blitz rating is gonna increase very fast once you put time and effort into it. That being said and if you are used to 10 min Rapid that is.
the numbers.
A drawn game can be won in Blitz because of flagging, this is way harder to do in Rapid. Therefore more game should be drawn in Rapid then in Blitz at high level that is. Therefore you will see some people have way higher rating in Blitz because they are really good at both chess but also winning drawn games.
A draw is less points and can even give negative points towards rating.
You literally said learning to flag is part of the extra skill and strategy needed in blitz and I agree. Too late to try and defend that statement. What I will say to your latest point, is that is also what makes blitz more sporting then rapid. Blitz requires more exercised skill which means it will not always be perfect allowing for more dynamic matches based on more then just memory and theory.
Not sure what you are trying to say. I have never statet anything about blitz requireing less skill. So what do you mean about defending a statement? I wad just trying to explain why in high levels you can get more points in blitz then rapid. More points=higher rating numbers.
Not some of us my friend. Most of us. But that doesn't mean playing slower games will make you better at classical which is the typical lie and false expectation most new players are fed here which leads them to becoming frustrated and quitting.
How do you expect to get better at classical if not by playing slower games? Obviously you have to study and analyze and etc but if you don't try to apply that knowledge of your studying and analysis on the board in a game you won't get better.
Also, playing classical doesn't hurt your blitz lol it's quite the opposite actually, it just helps. Unless the majority of masters and coaches who say that in order to get better at chess you should play classical and really think through your moves are wrong. It's just a matter of getting in the right mindset. Most players when they are playing a lot of classical or rapid and switch to blitz or bullet it takes a couple of games to adjust to the rhythm but then they'll play good as they used to play whatever time format it is they're playing. Sometimes you have days where you're playing better, sometimes there are days you are playing worse. Sometimes you tilt and drop a lot of points. It's normal and happens to everyone. Doesn't mean anything.
Any skill you want to master you first do it slow before doing it faster. When you first learn how to drive you don't hop on a highway. When you first learned how to write you couldn't do it as fast as you do now. A piano player when first learning will play it slower. A basketball when first learning how to dribble will do so slower. A chef handles a knife much faster and with much more accuracy than when he did when he started cooking. A painter can paint much faster compared to the first time he held a brush. A dancer when learning a new choreography will run it slower a few times to get it right. An experienced fast-food cashier will type in your order much faster than he did his first week on the job. The list goes on and the same goes for chess.
This is a simplified example, but for instance, up to 500ish rating if you know the moves, basic checkmating patterns, very basic strategy and very basic everything you should be able to win a few games. Then from 500-1000-ish rating you need to stop hanging pieces, and improve your boardvision and maybe know some basic tactics to win. From 1000-1500 you need to improve tactically and have at least basic opening knowledge and an idea of what a winning endgame looks like. After you practiced that, learned it and digested it well you'll be able to recognize these patterns faster and transfer that knowledge to shorter time formats and be able to apply that knowledge much quickly, hence improving your blitz rating. From 1600-2000 you'll need to have a much better understanding of positional play, weak squares, pawn structures, etc. The best way to do so is studying and applying it to your games, and the best way to apply is to calmly think it through in a game. Can you do that playing only blitz? Yes, most likely, but it will take a lot longer than if you study it the right way right and play slower time formats. Technically even blitz can help you improve your rapid a little, just by being exposed to chess. Heck, watching agadmator or whatever can help you a bit as well, but it's far from ideal or the best way to do it. In a blitz game you don't have the time to remember everything you learned and consider whether it works or not. So your learning is harmed. Slower time formats allow you to practice your calculations better and absorb the knowledge better. "When you find a good move, look for a better one" - Lasker.. In blitz the moves are much more superficial, you don't have time to look for a better one.
Now, obviously there are somewhat different strategies when playing blitz, especially online, like flagging, and playing more superficial, finding a good move and just going for it instead of looking for a better one, etc etc, there's more intuition involved and intuition comes from experience. But once you get used to it you'll plateau a lot faster than if you were practicing it the right way, which is by studying, puzzles, looking at master games, etc and then considering all you've learned while staring at a board trying to apply all you've learned before making a move. And with repetition you'll recognize all patterns faster and that will translate to your blitz game and you will improve your blitz rating a lot faster than if you were only trying to apply your knowledge from studying, puzzles and analysis in blitz games only. I guarantee you the vast majority of players on this website above 2500, if not 100% of them, have played countless classical games.
Now, which one you rather play and have more fun playing it's entirely up to you and no one else's business. But saying that playing slower time formats doesn't improve classical or saying that playing classical hurts your blitz is complete nonsense. As I said, maybe for a couple of games until you get the groove back, but playing slower time formats will always do more good than harm for your overall chess and that is a known fact.
Practice doesn't make it perfect. Practice makes it permanent. Perfect practices makes it perfect.
I'm gonna be honest TLDR past the first sentence. I agree to get better at classical one should play classical. But classical is not even a category on this website and most people have no aspirations to play it so I would not recommend it for those who want to get better at blitz. The most I play is 30 min matches and it would be nice if chess.com had a separate "classical" rating for it like lichess does.
Also I think people are really underestimating what 400 rated players know. Learning Chess basics got me from 100 to 400. after that its all just practice and repetition and executing properly. One can still do puzzles, lessons and analyze their losses.
What is it with people that love saying some dumb fucking shit always pretend they didn't read when faced with facts? Let's pretend for a second you didn't read, which everybody knows is not true. Here's an advice: you should READ more !! It's good for the brain, might even help you with your chess and coming up with arguments that make sense. Also, if you want to pretend you didn't read because you're upset you can't come up with an argument that's fine, but the reason I wrote that was to explain to you that playing longer time formats (doesn't have to be classical, rapid is good enough) is really good for your blitz, so don't go spreading bs and stop telling beginners that playing classical is not good for blitz when everyone with more than 3 brain cells knows it's good for your blitz. Or at least try to base your opinion on arguments that are logical and make sense, which so far you haven't done.
You seem to be confusing opinions with facts.
You can have the opinion that the earth is flat, but it does not make it a fact.
Some people just have horrible time management
@CooloutAC
repeating the same thing won't help your cause
Not underestimating anything. I know exactly what a 400 knows. I was 400 once. Learning the basics does get you from 100 to 400. Did the same for me. Playing rapid and thinking got me to 1400. It will get you over 1000.
Puzzles, lessons and analyzing are not useless. Unless you are not taking the time to think and apply what you studied in your games, which happens in blitz.
It's explained in the longer post you "didn't read". Spare a couple of minutes to read it (again) and you'll understand.
I've started playing alot more 30 min rapid, and its totally destroyed my blitz game.
But if you look on the bright side... your rapid rating goes up! =)
@CooloutAC
repeating the same thing won't help your cause
Not underestimating anything. I know exactly what a 400 knows. I was 400 once. Learning the basics does get you from 100 to 400. Did the same for me. Playing rapid and thinking got me to 1400. It will get you over 1000.
Puzzles, lessons and analyzing are not useless. Unless you are not taking the time to think and apply what you studied in your games, which happens in blitz.
It's explained in the longer post you "didn't read". Spare a couple of minutes to read it (again) and you'll understand.
When I lose because of obvious blunders, there is nothing else to know.
I lose because of obvious blunders. My rating is something over 1000 higher than yours. Do you not think knowing more could make a difference?
@CooloutAC That's the worst excuse for being ok with mediocrity I have ever read. Comparable only to "tldr"
Which is fine, chess is a hobby and you can half@ss it all you want and have no obligation to try to be decent at it. I don't study it hard either, but giving sh*tty advice to other people for god knows what reason (maybe you don't want them to get better than you?) is stupid, poor, dumb, and low and I have zero respect for that.
You clearly have no idea what you're saying. "playing slower games won't make you better at classical", "playing rapid won't make you better at blitz" -
I love skateboarding, been doing it all my life and I'm actually fairly reasonable at that. Still if someone gives me advice, especially if they are better than me I am humble enough to at the very least take into consideration what they are suggesting, that's how one improves, because they clearly have more knowledge at that than me. That's what you're lacking. Instead of replying to my arguments you run away on a tangent to avoid, pretend not to read posts and come up with some rambling non-sense bs about self-fulfilling prophecies or feeling special to avoid the logic and common sense in front of you. I am average. Stick to the topic. Instead of facing your problems and trying to improve the right way you tell yourself whatever excuses. You don't need good memory to play okay chess at club level. I have terrible memory as well, but there's always something new to study that will help you improve, a new tactical motif, a different pattern, another pawn structure, positional play, weak squares or whatever. All I read are excuses, you don't need to memorize moves or whatever, but to understand the concepts, and actually take the time to try and remember them in your games, which is only do-able in slower time formats.
If you lose because of obvious blunders is because you didn't take enough time to consider what was going on in the game. That is obvious. If you had more time you would have realized your queen was hanging, or that by moving your knight you allowed mate in 1 or whatever blunder you made.
Studying past basic principles won't give you better board vision. TAKING YOUR TIME AND THINKING THROUGH YOUR MOVES WILL. That's really not hard to understand. It's basic. It's chess 101. By taking your time, digesting and absorbing the moves and the position with time you'll notice those patterns faster and play better blitz.
the numbers.
A drawn game can be won in Blitz because of flagging, this is way harder to do in Rapid. Therefore more game should be drawn in Rapid then in Blitz at high level that is. Therefore you will see some people have way higher rating in Blitz because they are really good at both chess but also winning drawn games.
A draw is less points and can even give negative points towards rating.
You literally said learning to flag is part of the extra skill and strategy needed in blitz and I agree. Too late to try and defend that statement. What I will say to your latest point, is that is also what makes blitz more sporting then rapid. Blitz requires more exercised skill which means it will not always be perfect allowing for more dynamic matches based on more then just memory and theory.
Not sure what you are trying to say. I have never statet anything about blitz requireing less skill. So what do you mean about defending a statement? I wad just trying to explain why in high levels you can get more points in blitz then rapid. More points=higher rating numbers.
If you read through this thread, or start looking at peoples stats on their profile pages. You will see the opposite is generally true. Most people are higher rated in rapid cause the competition is much weaker and because chess is generally easier for most when you have more time to think.
If you read what I said and what you just comment I wrote High levels. Oufcourse beginners and intermediant might be worse in blitz. The rating number that is.
the numbers.
A drawn game can be won in Blitz because of flagging, this is way harder to do in Rapid. Therefore more game should be drawn in Rapid then in Blitz at high level that is. Therefore you will see some people have way higher rating in Blitz because they are really good at both chess but also winning drawn games.
A draw is less points and can even give negative points towards rating.
You literally said learning to flag is part of the extra skill and strategy needed in blitz and I agree. Too late to try and defend that statement. What I will say to your latest point, is that is also what makes blitz more sporting then rapid. Blitz requires more exercised skill which means it will not always be perfect allowing for more dynamic matches based on more then just memory and theory.
Not sure what you are trying to say. I have never statet anything about blitz requireing less skill. So what do you mean about defending a statement? I wad just trying to explain why in high levels you can get more points in blitz then rapid. More points=higher rating numbers.
If you read through this thread, or start looking at peoples stats on their profile pages. You will see the opposite is generally true. Most people are higher rated in rapid cause the competition is much weaker and because chess is generally easier for most when you have more time to think.
If you read what I said and what you just comment I wrote High levels. Oufcourse beginners and intermediant might be worse in blitz. The rating number that is.
The average player is just that, the average player, and that is the barometer for competitive matchups. The players at the highest level are the barometer for the merits of game itself as a high level sport. But what has been wrong with gaming sites for the past 30 years is they cater the game around the .001% of players at the top levels, and it ruins the quality of matches and experience for the majority of everyone else who get ragequitted out.
For example, the reason why players seem to play more accurate to their level in relation to their play on lichess, and why matches seem to be more competitive and consistent at all levels, is because they don't let new accounts pick their starting rating to make it easier for streamers to speedrun which I think is completely ludicrous. Or because high level players want their ratings to be more equivalent to their OTB ratings which should be completely irrelevant. On lichess they start everyone at mid level and evaluate them from there which makes more logical sense, not caring about the ratings from other rating systems and playerbases, and that seems to be more fair to all.
Is it even relevant to our conversation? The discussion was about why difference in rating between blitz. Also I added that i is prefable for new players to learn chess by playing slower time control because I feel this is a faster way to learn chess then smash blitz games.
About Lichess versus Chess.com, both Lichess and Chess.com got different rating numbers between time controls. Same story on Lichess, my rapid is higher then my blitz that is higher then my bullet.
I talk about top players because hint hint they are the best at fast chess. (and other time controls) Being good at chess makes you good in most time controls. Oufcourse you need to practice a little in different time controls to get used to them.
A little over a year ago I was 231 rated in blitz and today I am 1647. It is not meant for bragging more that I am trying to say that I am trying to tell you works. Playing slower game will help your blitz. Because getting better in chess will help you at all time controls.
the numbers.
A drawn game can be won in Blitz because of flagging, this is way harder to do in Rapid. Therefore more game should be drawn in Rapid then in Blitz at high level that is. Therefore you will see some people have way higher rating in Blitz because they are really good at both chess but also winning drawn games.
A draw is less points and can even give negative points towards rating.
You literally said learning to flag is part of the extra skill and strategy needed in blitz and I agree. Too late to try and defend that statement. What I will say to your latest point, is that is also what makes blitz more sporting then rapid. Blitz requires more exercised skill which means it will not always be perfect allowing for more dynamic matches based on more then just memory and theory.
Not sure what you are trying to say. I have never statet anything about blitz requireing less skill. So what do you mean about defending a statement? I wad just trying to explain why in high levels you can get more points in blitz then rapid. More points=higher rating numbers.
If you read through this thread, or start looking at peoples stats on their profile pages. You will see the opposite is generally true. Most people are higher rated in rapid cause the competition is much weaker and because chess is generally easier for most when you have more time to think.
If you read what I said and what you just comment I wrote High levels. Oufcourse beginners and intermediant might be worse in blitz. The rating number that is.
The average player is just that, the average player, and that is the barometer for competitive matchups. The players at the highest level are the barometer for the merits of game itself as a high level sport. But what has been wrong with gaming sites for the past 30 years is they cater the game around the .001% of players at the top levels, and it ruins the quality of matches and experience for the majority of everyone else who get ragequitted out.
For example, the reason why players seem to play more accurate to their level in relation to their play on lichess, and why matches seem to be more competitive and consistent at all levels, is because they don't let new accounts pick their starting rating to make it easier for streamers to speedrun which I think is completely ludicrous. Or because high level players want their ratings to be more equivalent to their OTB ratings which should be completely irrelevant. On lichess they start everyone at mid level and evaluate them from there which makes more logical sense, not caring about the ratings from other rating systems and playerbases, and that seems to be more fair to all.
Is it even relevant to our conversation? The discussion was about why difference in rating between blitz. Also I added that i is prefable for new players to learn chess by playing slower time control because I feel this is a faster way to learn chess then smash blitz games.
About Lichess versus Chess.com, both Lichess and Chess.com got different rating numbers between time controls. Same story on Lichess, my rapid is higher then my blitz that is higher then my bullet.
I talk about top players because hint hint they are the best at fast chess. (and other time controls) Being good at chess makes you good in most time controls. Oufcourse you need to practice a little in different time controls to get used to them.
A little over a year ago I was 231 rated in blitz and today I am 1647. It is not meant for bragging more that I am trying to say that I am trying to tell you works. Playing slower game will help your blitz. Because getting better in chess will help you at all time controls.
It could be argued the opposite, one would probably improve faster playing blitz, as is evident for the majority of people who learned how to play chess on this site. Its good for new players to play slow chess, so they don't feel as bad since it is easier, which is why most people have higher ratings in rapid compared to blitz. You are the one not staying on topic, not me buddy.
You don't listen. It is not about feeling good or feeling bad about the rating number it is how to get better at the game. I am telling you what made me improve (way faster). If you want to focus on blitz it is all good, do whatever you like man. I prefer blitz to. My favourite is 5min blitz. But I throw in some 10 min Rapid and some Daily to sometimes because I know that they are very good at learning.
I got an awesome game in Rapid 10+0 today. Over 100 moves and I had only 10 seconds left on the clock in the end when I won. https://www.chess.com/game/live/49408198679 The other dude wouldn't let me win easily, he tried his best to flag/make it a draw.
I gotta say again though to the OP make an account on lichess. There is an app on windows called real chess and one on amazon just called chess, by some company called Pirinel. I mean there is tons of other chess games where you can have matches where you don't get utterly destroyed by people who are supposed to be at your level.
Chess.com is very popular, and with that popularity comes tons of smurfing alt accounts especially at the lower levels.
But how can you tell if your opponent is cheating or not?
TLDR past the first couple sentences. What don't you understand that most of the very books you would be recommending to people, say not to bother studying till 2000 FIDE rating themselves? Eric Hansen once on this very forum said he never picked up a book till he was already a GM. I'm sure that is true for many of them.
And if people aspire to play blitz they should play more blitz, if they aspire to be good at classical then they should play classical, and if rapid etc... But its very hard to be good at everything and most people will find rapid much easier then blitz on this website for the reasons that have been stated, which is why most people are higher rated in rapid especially the older folk.
Again, there is no point in even analyzing my games if I know right away why I lost because I hung or missed obvious hanging pieces. Whats the point? Is the book going to give me board vision? nope. There is a famous capablanca quote related to this point. Practicing by repetition and remembering my mistakes is all I can do. puzzles, lessons, etc everything we need is on this website.
But most of us are severely limited by our God given natural abilities, and if you want to go around and tell people they are mediocre because they are lazy and didn't try hard enough, then I believe you do it because you have an ego and superiority complex and prefer chess to be unpopular so you can feel special for playing it. Shame on you.
LOLOLOL again no logic or arguments to back up your shady weak statements and comes up with the tldr again.. have you no shame my friend? oh why do I bother asking it's clear you dont.
And omg you're psychoanalyzing me now? what did I ever say that suggested I want chess to be unpopular when everything I said clearly indicates the opposite? You're the one deliberately giving sh*tty advice so that people won't improve and stay at your ratings or below you. Lmao...you're hilarious look at you talking about ego when in order to protect the fragile one of yours you pretend to have not read what I wrote. Go figure... but nice ad hominem, how does that saying go again? Never debate with a stupid person they'll take you down to their level and beat you by experience... But since I already got down here let me try to argue on your level since we're going down this road I just want to say for the record how dumb you sound.
You really do have difficulties interpreting basic english posts you claim to not have read. I never necessarily stated you have to read chess books to study and improve.
Eric Hansen may have never picked a chess book until he was a GM but he sure as sh** didn't play solely blitz, genius. Now go look at his blitz rating. Actually, look at everyone with a blitz rating >2500 I guarantee you 100% of them have played countless classical and rapid games.
Everybody plateaus at everything at some point, no one with relatively normal cognitive abilities and close to average iq who tries at least a little plateaus at 700 in chess
You say you don't read it yet you reply to several parts of it with arguments that make no sense, but fail to address the parts where I prove by logic where you're wrong. So if you're not going to stay on topic might as well just not bother to reply so that everybody here benefits from that.
What part of saying that you if you took more time to think, ie, playing rapid for example, you wouldn't have hung obvious pieces? Do that a few times and the pattern gets more engraved in your head so you realize and notice it faster next time, hence improving your board vision and improving your blitz rating.
It could be argued the opposite, one would probably improve faster playing blitz, as is evident for the majority of people who learned how to play chess on this site. Its good for new players to play slow chess, so they don't feel as bad since it is easier, which is why most people have higher ratings in rapid compared to blitz.
It COULD be argued that chess skill and/or improvement is determined by mind-control rays from Venus. Just because someone endlessly repeats utter nonsense doesn't confer legitimacy on it.
Yes, it's easier to find good moves and play better with more time to think. Most players probably play better at longer time controls. But if all your opponents are playing better, then you won't be able to beat them any more often than you can at blitz, so you won't gain rating points.
The reason that some players are much better at slower time controls than they are at blitz is because their overall chess chess strength is undeveloped and the difference in time to think is more significant for them. Players who are bad players overall will lose to them more often at rapid or classical and players who are stronger overall will defeat them less often. Hence the ratings difference.
if you read what i've repeatedly said in every post. It is because the competition is easier in slow games, people have more time to think to make moves, and for these reasons the majority have a much higher rating in rapid then they do in blitz.
That doesn't make much sense. It's certainly true that with more time to think players will make better moves, but how does that make for higher ratings? Your opponent will also have time to think up better moves. And if the majority are playing better in rapid, how can you beat them so often that you obtain a much higher rating?
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. The learning curve is not as high, the skill gap is not as wide, meaning the competition is not as strong. Because it is beginner mode and what most beginners who need time to think prefer to play. While the stronger players prefer bullet and blitz because for the same reasons. And just like playing classical will hurt your blitz, playing too much blitz will hurt your classical it goes both ways an its all about what you prefer. It is very hard to be good at both, but to do so you must play both.
After playing much more 30 min games though I can see why alot of the older folk are afraid of it dying off. It does make me feel good to have a much higher rating in longer time controls, as do most people. And because of how fast blitz games are, they do not seem as invested in, especially when my rating is much lower.
This still makes no sense. According to you, rapid is so much easier that everyone can play better, so everyone's rating is higher. That's not how ratings work. You only get a higher rating by winning games, and then the losers' ratings go down. No matter how easy or difficult the format may be, the average rating would be about the same.
SOME people play much better with just a little more time to think, while a lot of players with low blitz ratings are all-around poor chess players at any time control.