i prefer something like 3/2, 3/5 or 5/5 in case my opponent abandons the game.
I like when my opponent abandon the game. I just annoy them by telling them I reported you I guess.
this is what i was responding to above.
i prefer something like 3/2, 3/5 or 5/5 in case my opponent abandons the game.
I like when my opponent abandon the game. I just annoy them by telling them I reported you I guess.
this is what i was responding to.
fair
why so serious? :3
Hey, I remember you from our bullet games lol. I got matched with you like a gazillion times.
If you think the 10|0 pool is weak, just wait till you discover 3|2 and 3|0. A 2300 in 10|0 crushes a 2300 in 3|0 in all time controls faster than bullet.
It's not the same thing, you cannot make those comparison and say a 1300 at 1' is better than a 1300 at 10' just because the time control is shorter.
I have played Daily Chess all my life and I play it as if it was a classical time control, because I dont play OTB, so Daily is the next best thing. On some other site Im 1800+ at Daily and im regularly beating players over there who claim a similar FIDE rating, who happen to be rated at 1800-2000. In longer time controls Im 700 points away from IMs, who happen to be 2500 at that site. Now, look at GothamChess rapid / blitz rating, he's an IM and he's like 1600 points away from me in short time controls here. How would you explain the discrepancy? The explanation is you can't compare time controls like that.
At 10' rapid / blitz / whatever you call it, here, I struggle to get past 1100 elo. You cannot say a 1100 who beats me here at 10' would be much much better than me at a slower time control, unless he can magically gain 700 points and play at 1800 strength at the slower time control.
The old forum troll Jason R., had a 2400+ bullet here and if you looked at his FIDE profile, his highest FIDE rating was 1872 after a lifetime of studying chess. If you looked at his chess.com profiles, the longer the time control he played, the lower his rating went.
I have so many issues with this post that I'll have to make a list.
1) What I said only applies at the 2200+ level. At the 1300 level, Rapid ratings are, on average, 200 higher than Blitz ratings. That's because the vast majority of 2000+ players play Blitz and/or Bullet exclusively, while most sub-2000 players Rapid as well, if not exclusively so. This renders the sub-2000 10|0 pool weaker, and this pool is extended to roughly 2200 due to the corresponding rating inflation. However, past 2200, only the few true 2000+ that play Rapid remain, and their ratings are deflated by the occasional encounters with 2000+ players who don't play Rapid regularly, and whose Rapid ratings hence haven't yet caught up with their true strength (which is the majority of 2000+ players, as explained).
2) If that "other website" is Lichess, I'll have you known that the ratings there are inflated by about 500 points at your level, so your discrepancy makes sense. The ratings of stronger players are so low because most of them simply don't play correspondence chess that often, and their ratings are therefore inaccurate. The discrepancy makes perfect sense, although I don't know how it's at all relevant to my original post.
3) I already mentioned both that my statement only applies at the 2200+ level and that your true strength is the one indicated by your chess.com rating (1300), but my statement was about averages, anyway, so even if your claims were valid, they still wouldn't refute it.
4) Your example of Jason R. only proves my point. If his Rapid rating was lower than his Blitz rating, then he would indeed, statistically speaking, get crushed by someone whose Rapid rating was the same as his Blitz rating. So I don't know where you were going by bringing him up.
No, it's not Lichess - it's an exclusive Daily chess website - and Im only comparing myself to the people who claim a FIDE rating in their profile. If someone is 1800-rated like me, but we don't even know if he's FIDE rated at all, then there's no point of comparison.
If I am regularly beating club players at a certain time control, it means I play at that level.
No, the true strength is not "determined by your chess.com rating" at an arbitrary time control that you choose. The only thing my Rapid 10' 0'' rating in chess.com indicates is I am rated at this number in chess.com at 10', nothing else.
If I am playing at another time control and I regularly beat players who are FIDE rated at a certain range, then it means my strength at this other time control is what it is, regardless of my blitz or hyperbullet rating on this site.
I know you all enjoy having a good laugh when a player that's 1100 at 10' claims to be 1800 strong at some other time control, but facts are facts.
*PEOPLE PLAY AT DIFFERENT STRENGTHS AT DIFFERENT TIME CONTROLS*
You would never caught me dead doing this kind of thing at classical time controls
https://www.chess.com/game/live/43589377887
and you would not caught me dead thinking barely a couple of moves in advance with no positional or long term strategy considerations in a longer time control either.
Hence, that's why Im roughly 600-700 points stronger in longer time controls than Im at 10'. You seem to think if my 10' here is 1100, that's my strength overall and that's plain wrong.
If you think the 10|0 pool is weak, just wait till you discover 3|2 and 3|0. A 2300 in 10|0 crushes a 2300 in 3|0 in all time controls faster than bullet.
It's not the same thing, you cannot make those comparison and say a 1300 at 1' is better than a 1300 at 10' just because the time control is shorter.
I have played Daily Chess all my life and I play it as if it was a classical time control, because I dont play OTB, so Daily is the next best thing. On some other site Im 1800+ at Daily and im regularly beating players over there who claim a similar FIDE rating, who happen to be rated at 1800-2000. In longer time controls Im 700 points away from IMs, who happen to be 2500 at that site. Now, look at GothamChess rapid / blitz rating, he's an IM and he's like 1600 points away from me in short time controls here. How would you explain the discrepancy? The explanation is you can't compare time controls like that.
At 10' rapid / blitz / whatever you call it, here, I struggle to get past 1100 elo. You cannot say a 1100 who beats me here at 10' would be much much better than me at a slower time control, unless he can magically gain 700 points and play at 1800 strength at the slower time control.
The old forum troll Jason R., had a 2400+ bullet here and if you looked at his FIDE profile, his highest FIDE rating was 1872 after a lifetime of studying chess. If you looked at his chess.com profiles, the longer the time control he played, the lower his rating went.
I have so many issues with this post that I'll have to make a list.
1) What I said only applies at the 2200+ level. At the 1300 level, Rapid ratings are, on average, 200 higher than Blitz ratings. That's because the vast majority of 2000+ players play Blitz and/or Bullet exclusively, while most sub-2000 players Rapid as well, if not exclusively so. This renders the sub-2000 10|0 pool weaker, and this pool is extended to roughly 2200 due to the corresponding rating inflation. However, past 2200, only the few true 2000+ that play Rapid remain, and their ratings are deflated by the occasional encounters with 2000+ players who don't play Rapid regularly, and whose Rapid ratings hence haven't yet caught up with their true strength (which is the majority of 2000+ players, as explained).
2) If that "other website" is Lichess, I'll have you known that the ratings there are inflated by about 500 points at your level, so your discrepancy makes sense. The ratings of stronger players are so low because most of them simply don't play correspondence chess that often, and their ratings are therefore inaccurate. The discrepancy makes perfect sense, although I don't know how it's at all relevant to my original post.
3) I already mentioned both that my statement only applies at the 2200+ level and that your true strength is the one indicated by your chess.com rating (1300), but my statement was about averages, anyway, so even if your claims were valid, they still wouldn't refute it.
4) Your example of Jason R. only proves my point. If his Rapid rating was lower than his Blitz rating, then he would indeed, statistically speaking, get crushed by someone whose Rapid rating was the same as his Blitz rating. So I don't know where you were going by bringing him up.
No, it's not Lichess - it's an exclusive Daily chess website - and Im only comparing myself to the people who claim a FIDE rating in their profile. If someone is 1800-rated like me, but we don't even know if he's FIDE rated at all, then there's no point of comparison.
If I am regularly beating club players at a certain time control, it means I play at that level.
No, the true strength is not "determined by your chess.com rating" at an arbitrary time control that you choose. The only thing my Rapid 10' 0'' rating in chess.com indicates is I am rated at this number in chess.com at 10', nothing else.
If I am playing at another time control and I regularly beat players who are FIDE rated at a certain range, then it means my strength at this other time control is what it is, regardless of my blitz or hyperbullet rating on this site.
I know you all enjoy having a good laugh when a player that's 1100 at 10' claims to be 1800 strong at some other time control, but facts are facts.
*PEOPLE PLAY AT DIFFERENT STRENGTHS AT DIFFERENT TIME CONTROLS*
You would never caught me dead doing this kind of thing at classical time controls
https://www.chess.com/game/live/43589377887
and you would not caught me dead thinking barely a couple of moves in advance with no positional or long term strategy considerations in a longer time control either.
Hence, that's why Im roughly 600-700 points stronger in longer time controls than Im at 10'. You seem to think if my 10' here is 1100, that's my strength overall and that's plain wrong.
None of the claims that you're responding to are claims that I made. If you want to believe that you're a super-strong player, fine, you're free to believe whatever you want. But, as far as I'm concerned, you have played around 100 Daily games on chess.com, and your rating has stabilised at just under 1300.
And, for the record, no, I don't think that a chess.com rating in all time controls determines your rating in all other time controls, and I don't think everybody plays at the exact same strength in all time controls, nor did I ever claim any of those things, and I have no idea why you think I did.
Then I must have misunderstood some of your points, sorry.
Anyway, my Daily rating here is a bit of a lie. I only lost 2 or 3 games on the board out of all I've played, and one of them was a blunder because for some reason I mistook the square a piece was in so I immediately resigned. No point in dragging a game for a month after a gross blunder.
Most of my losses were timeouts, and my last 5 or 6 consecutive resignations were just resignations in equal or slightly better positions when I was certain I would be quitting the site (a few months ago). I am not definitely not under 1300 at slow time controls.
Xor you make a lot of good points except that you neglect the fact of time usage in daily- some people might analyze games at length while others (like me) just play the first move that comes to their mind.
This can result in someone many points lower rated than me otb have a close rating (or higher!) to me in daily. That’s about it, though.
Yes you can never know how long people will take to analyse a position or if they are using a huge database of analysed games to help them.
I try to take a few minutes per board when it's my turn to move, so back when I played around 70 games in a row, even if you took 2 minutes per game, you would spend hours every day just going through positions. I've cut that down to around 10-20 games at once now. That's more manageable and I dont have to go "ugh mandatory daily chess again" every single day.
You’re going to be my parents? Like, both at the same time?
if u want omegalul
This about to be a real adoption lmao
10 + 0 is simply not a good time control. Everyone knows that the player pool in 10|0 is WEAK. Playing speed chess 24 hours a day will do NOTHING to improve your real chess. I bet more than half of the people who spam speed chess every day don't even play otb and just waste their life shuffling pieces. Chances are you will play 10+0 for YEARS and still be staying in the beginner's pool. It's not really even chess because everyone is moving too fast. If you load up some 15+10 or 45+45, just watch as your rating plummets to the depths of the earth's core. This is because you have spent all your time crippling your skills playing 10|0 and not real chess. It's obvious that the ratings on here for rapid that is established by 10+0 mean nothing. Everyone knows that 10+0 is the softest time control on the entire internet. You don't see these kinds of people constantly spamming speed chess in other chess sites such as lichess and icc. I am disappointed with those of you who constantly play 10+0 and other forms of speed chess.
just kidding lol
You are probably correct, but I switched to 10 0 because I thought 3 0 was ruining my game and I was headed towards my floor in OTB. Of course, 10 0 Arena has killed my rating because …
this used to be a joke post
I agree with this post, 10+0 is for mundane players who has no life of their own
just kidding
Yes 10 minute is a weak time control for kids that want to die in a hole definitely it is not real chess.
Just kidding
Chess is such a weak game, which is why you guys have got such weak ratings.
Try some real hardcore games, like Tic Tac Toe, or Head or Tail and you'll see the difference. Alternatively, you may want to try Loto.
Rock Paper Scissors players please stand up
I’m personally a scissors main idk about you but research have shown that scissors only loses 33% of the time, and wins/draws 66%! Those are some pretty good odds
I’m personally a scissors main idk about you but research have shown that scissors only loses 33% of the time, and wins/draws 66%! Those are some pretty good odds
That's a powerful opening for you!
I’m personally a scissors main idk about you but research have shown that scissors only loses 33% of the time, and wins/draws 66%! Those are some pretty good odds
Thanks for revealing your prep to me!
I’m personally a scissors main idk about you but research have shown that scissors only loses 33% of the time, and wins/draws 66%! Those are some pretty good odds
Thanks for revealing your prep to me!
this is my new prep, imma increase my rating tenfold with this 😎
I’m personally a scissors main idk about you but research have shown that scissors only loses 33% of the time, and wins/draws 66%! Those are some pretty good odds
Thanks for revealing your prep to me!
this is my new prep, imma increase my rating tenfold with this 😎
But I prefer paper. Looks like I will have to prepare for you specifically!
bro i play 10 0 and i was like
wha- i thought u played 10 0 b1z
and when i saw the "just kidding"
bruh
Yeah, but at some point you will offend someone and be cancelled.
You could go 'Botez'....or lose every game, but if you get tired of that....then you dont play and dont offend anyone. I mean this guy says 10 0, maybe he meant if youve ever played a 10 min game, not just recently. Now we look at everything youve ever said....but wait it gets better. If you are silent on a silence is violence....or just opened your mouth I suppose.
Idk what you are even saying lol
I'm getting a strong schizophrenic vibe from that comment.