It would actually be surprising if players over 2200/2300 at blitz weren’t lower rated at Daily.
Yep, because daily (like rapid) has a glass ceiling somewhere around 2000 due to caveman level cheaters (it's possible to cheat at fast time controls, but not for cavemen).
That's why I'd never bother playing rapid or daily here.
And voila, we're back to different pools.
The whole premise is erroneous. It’s a different rating pool and is not comparing like with like. The top Daily players are 25/2600 and blitz and bullet well over 3000, so there’s a lot more ‘stretching’ of the ratings in live chess.
It wojld actually be surprising if players over 2200/2300 at blitz weren’t lower rated at Daily. Comparing my own stats, I’m at exactly the same % percentile (to the nearest 0.1) for both blitz and daily despite there being a fairly large ‘discrepancy’ in my ratings.
Hi James, I'm aware that the rating pools are different for the different time controls. But I did not expect to discover that there would be such a dramatic difference between the Daily and the Rapid/Blitz of some 2000+ Rapid/Blitz players.
I looked at your profile, and you actually fit what I consider the "Natural Order of Things."
FIDE: 2207
Bullet: 2425
Blitz: 2315
Rapid: 2091
Daily: 2111
Also, very few titled players play daily and/or take it seriously compared to the number who play blitz/bullet and actually try hard. Plus, daily seems to peak around 2500. With the current number of strong players it just isn't possible to get any higher.
I'm aware that the rating pools are different for the different time controls. But I did not expect to discover that there would be such a dramatic difference
So are you a troll now or what?
Because a lot of your recent posts and topics are crazy.
(doing my best seniorpatzer impersonation)
Listen, everyone, believe me, I'm fully aware that they can't be compared.
All I'm saying is that when I compared them, I was SHOCKED that they were different. That's all I'm saying ok.
And like I said in my OP, I think the reason they're so different is that daily gives people more time, and more time = higher ratings right? See, I totally know what I'm talking about. Believe me.
What really concerns me is these pools, you know, how wet are they? Because I've been playing a long time, and I've never been more than damp.
Stiggling,
You're rather unhappy at the moment. If you see me as the source of your unhappiness, please cease reading my posts and comments. That should help you.
P.S. I went to your Profile page and I saw the following:
Looks like you got muted by the Chess.com moderators. Perhaps they considered you to be troll? If so, please don't project your deficiencies onto others.
Stiggling,
You're rather unhappy at the moment. If you see me as the source of your unhappiness, please cease reading my posts and comments. That should help you.
As is often the case with unhappiness, it means expectations were too high.
If you want me to expect much less from you, that's fine, this topic was basically the nail in the coffin already. I was just giving you a chance to explain yourself.
As for muting, yes, I was muted for 24 hours for discussing religion in the general forums.
No hard feelings. Goodbye Stiggling.
Also, very few titled players play daily and/or take it seriously compared to the number who play blitz/bullet and actually try hard. Plus, daily seems to peak around 2500. With the current number of strong players it just isn't possible to get any higher.
True, but Blitz was only taken seriously in the last 30 or so years with many tournaments dedicated to this action over thought, adrenaline over contemplation, board vision over visualization form that emphasizes the sporting aspect of the game over the age old view of chess as a science and an art. Let's not leave out the growth of the Internet in players' lives. Just look at this site and what Danny Rensch really cares about; it sure as hell isn't classical or daily.
I think a major part of this move towards Blitz is not only an Americanization of the game, namely the international influence of a culture that prefers quick action to contemplative thought, but also the growth of information, the strength of engines and the prodigious amount of preparation that greatly increased defensive resources. This leveled styles of play -- imagine all painting in the photorealistic style -- and made classical less interesting at very top levels.
Studying the history of anything associated with technology and you'll find this ultra-practical, efficient, leveling process going on. Take the styling of cars for one. Aerodynamic and fuel considerations have more or less eliminated interesting styles that made vintage cars aesthetically unique if inefficient. In my opinion, classical chess has gone the same way.
Though I don't play it, I give Blitz a nod at the highest GM levels for promoting experimentation and imagination, but below that it's merely laughable and often bears little resemblance to chess, at least when time trouble inevitably creeps in to become the overriding consideration.
However, to Bullet, or ADHD Chess, I give the back of my hand as the game of choice for the anti-narrative, random access, low attention span, everything's an action movie generation. But I ask why stop at 60-second chess? Let us adventurously bolt ahead to A-Bomb Chess at 30 seconds or the ultimate H-Bomb Chess at 15 seconds. Since we have been breathlessly galloping to the pace of the machine, these two will become viable when our thoughts can be transmitted directly to the board. Don't bet against it the way things are going.
Also, very few titled players play daily and/or take it seriously compared to the number who play blitz/bullet and actually try hard. Plus, daily seems to peak around 2500. With the current number of strong players it just isn't possible to get any higher.
True, but Blitz was only taken seriously in the last 30 or so years with many tournaments dedicated to this action over thought, adrenaline over contemplation, board vision over visualization form that emphasizes the sporting aspect of the game over the age old view of chess as a science and an art. Let's not leave out the growth of the Internet in players' lives. Just look at this site and what Danny Rensch really cares about; it sure as hell isn't classical or daily.
I think a major part of this move towards Blitz is not only an Americanization of the game, namely the international influence of a culture that prefers quick action to contemplative thought, but also the growth of information, the strength of engines and the prodigious amount of preparation that greatly increased defensive resources. This leveled styles of play -- imagine all painting in the photorealistic style -- and made classical less interesting at very top levels.
Studying the history of anything associated with technology and you'll find this ultra-practical, efficient, leveling process going on. Take the styling of cars for one. Aerodynamic and fuel considerations have more or less eliminated interesting styles that made vintage cars aesthetically unique if inefficient. In my opinion, classical chess has gone the same way.
Though I don't play it, I give Blitz a nod at the highest GM levels for promoting experimentation and imagination, but below that it's merely laughable and often bears little resemblance to chess, at least when time trouble inevitably creeps in to become the overriding consideration.
However, to Bullet, or ADHD Chess, I give the back of my hand as the game of choice for the anti-narrative, random access, low attention span, everything's an action movie generation. But I ask why stop at 60-second chess? Let us adventurously bolt ahead to A-Bomb Chess at 30 seconds or the ultimate H-Bomb Chess at 15 seconds. Since we have been breathlessly galloping to the pace of the machine, these two will become viable when our thoughts can be transmitted directly to the board. Don't bet against it the way things are going.
OMG. Is there anything better than a great rant? That was just one helluva funny laugh-out loud screed. Fighting Bob, you have me rolling. Nothing better than seeing an old man doing the Big Bash on the latest trends. My friend, you have elevated the Disgusted Rant into an Art Form.
Decades ago, I had to learn to write a good essay back in high school and college. I'm sure they do the same thing today, but realistically speaking, it seems that young folks spend more time crafting their 140 character tweet and picking the best emoji or GIF than on writing a well-argued essay. It just really goes to your point about living in "future shock" where life just speeds up to Warp Drive 12. Get with it, or just fossilize old farts.
And I say this as a man who's into Action Movies and who plays more Blitz chess than I should. But I also like the Contemplative and the Reflective too, and so I'm a man who straddles both eras.
Thanks again Bob for a great rant. Had me chuckling throughout.
Some players are good at tactics and playing quickly without many blunders. This makes them good blitz/bullet players but not necessarily good daily players. I've played daily games with players rated over 2000 in blitz who were much lower rated in daily. One of these players just played solid and shuffled his pieces around without a plan. This is an ok strategy for blitz & bullet but it doesn't work when there's no clock to run down. I just slowly improved my position and eventually built up a decisive attack. In long games you need to really understand what's going on in the position. You can't just play passively and hope that your opponent blunders, at least not if they're a good player. Daily games require long-term planning. This is a skill that some blitz players haven't developed.
It would actually be surprising if players over 2200/2300 at blitz weren’t lower rated at Daily.
Yep, because daily (like rapid) has a glass ceiling somewhere around 2000 due to caveman level cheaters (it's possible to cheat at fast time controls, but not for cavemen).
That's why I'd never bother playing rapid or daily here.
And voila, we're back to different pools.
Actually most of my daily opponents play fairly, at least as far as I can tell. Occasionally someone does cheat against me but then chess.com reimburses my points so it's not really a problem.
Oh yeah, these days chess.com gives back points, hmm.
I guess that helps raise the ceiling.
How you get so strong in Daily? I would like to get from almost 1700 to something like 1800 or 1850 next year.>>>>
Don't play more than about 8 or 10 games at a time and spend a lot of time on them. Never play a move when you're tired or drunk. Concentrate hard, work out plans for yourself and potential plans for your opponent. Look at your games from your opponent's point of view. And eat more spinach, like Popeye.
Unless spinach makes you gassy, because that's not good for anyone..
I won a tough game against such a player about a year ago. His rating was ~1800 but he was much stronger, but played fast, and had about 50 games going. I waited until the game got to a tactical phase, which I spent a long time looking at on the analysis board with a lot of variations. My stroke of genius was to check his page and wait for him to be online and have my game be his only game where it was his turn to move before initiating the sequence. I stayed online so I could reply instantly. Sure enough, he moved after only a few minutes and I did likewise, but obviously I was heavily prepped for the line. He blundered pretty quickly and I won.
Pretty clever!
What if your opponent said something like this afterwards: "Ha! Ha! You expended so much time to beat me. Not only did you expend a lot of time prepping your variations, but you also expended a lot of time laying in wait for me to make my move. Whereas I, spent hardly any amount of time at all on the game. Sure you won the game, but you used 100% of your brainpower to struggle and overcome a mere fraction of mine, an admitted Daily Blitzer. If it was an OTB game, I would have crushed you. I allowed you your fun in a relatively meaningless Daily Chess game. Now off with you little petty player."
What would you say in response? I wouldn't like being on the receiving end of such a putdown.>>>
Chances are he would not have won otb at normal time controls because he may not have the concentration necessary The first time I ever played the Modern Benoni in club chess, I played it against a strong, up-and coming young player from Manchester. He outgraded me but not to the extent that he would automatically be expected to win. He was about 2050 FIDE .... I think he's much stronger now. Maybe I was 1900. He took his eye off the ball around move 18 and dropped a central pawn. There was nothing he could do. He was quite condemnatory after the game finished. He told me that if he hadn't dropped that pawn, he would have crushed me. I thought it was quite funny but I didn't laugh. I thought he was a tiny bit uptight at losing.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
And it's annoying how many people make the same mistake... "more time = better moves"
No. Your opponent has more time too, so that makes no sense (also of course different pools of players).