Ratings from different systems or pools cannot be easily compared. Yes, Online ratings are significantly higher than blitz ratings here, and neither are a good indicator for FIDE ratings. If you show up at a beginner tournament, call yourself a 1200 and go from there. Even if 1340 is accurate, your first tournament probably won't be your best just because everything is new.
1000 rated players on blitz are a lot better than 1000 rated players on online
Sort:
Oct 24, 2013
0
#4
maxwellaue wrote:
Oh and even if you haven't been studying or reading books, having 18 months of consistent chess experience is a lot more than most beginners.
As far as openings, you shouldn't read up on any openings except for practicing the opening principles such as pawn in the centre, devlop your pieces quickly, castle early, and all that basic stuff.
I get the basic principles of the opening now, only recently have I really started to understand what the plan actually is during the opening. I know now that I used to massively over commit my pawns at the start, neglecting development of my pieces, centre control and king security etc... when I started I was literally starting from a point of knowing the basic rules (excluding castling, en passant), that was it. I was losing to 600 rated people on blitz regularly at that point, I would never lose to anyone under 700 now barring a complete schoolboy blunder. At least now I'm competitive against "higher" level players and have a couple of wins under my belt, so that is progress.
At what rating level will I come across players that would have studied positions, different patterns of play, openings? Will 1000-1200 people on Blitz have studied to a small extent?
I looked at a few of your blitz games, and the main reason you're losing is that you're overlooking basic tactics whether on the giving or receiving end of them.
I'd suggest studying this website intensively:
Oct 24, 2013
0
#6
Quasimorphy wrote:
I looked at a few of your blitz games, and the main reason you're losing is that you're overlooking basic tactics whether on the giving or receiving end of them.
I'd suggest studying this website intensively:
I'm aware of the basic tactics and I'm also aware that I miss them both offensively and defensively, trust me when I get forked, pinned and generally outwitted it is pretty annoying. Doesn't help that I'm watching tv half the time whilst trying to play. I'd say the one thing that does improve just by playing more is being able to identify these basic tactical opportunities. I am better at seeing them when not under time pressure of Blitz, the better you get the more instinctive these things are I think. As I'm still a beginner I do miss these things.
True, just playing will increase awareness of tactics, but doing lots of basic tactics exercises will speed up the process considerably.
Oct 24, 2013
0
#8
Everybody in online chess is a little bit overrated then their live ratings. Online chess: 1200 Live Chess: probably 1050-1100 (Standard)
My rating with a three day time limit is 1800 plus, but for 15 min games with a ten second increment it is around 1500-1600 and after the six blitz games I have played my blitz rating is 1,000.
I am 64 and, given a bit of time, can bring a lot of experience and patient analysis to bear. But those qualities are of much less use in blitz. The people with very high blitz ratings are very good at managing time. Patient analysis doesn't come into it.
The skills in the two games are different.
I doubt that there is any straightforward answer to how strong any particular blitz player will be if you forced them to play with traditional time limits. Some would be strong but some would be very weak. It would depend partly on how much chess thinking each had developed while becoming good at pre moves and partly on exactly how irritating they found being forced to concentrate.
Oct 24, 2013
0
#10
maxwellaue wrote:
One thing that you should know is that pretty much any online player that regularly plays chess tournaments under USCF (United States Chess Fed.) affliation will have his internet "blitz" rating about 200 to 300 points lower than his USCF tournament rating, or the only chess rating that really matters.
There are many theories as to why this is, but the most popular explanation is believe it or not, the players on Chess.com (many of whom are playing while distracted and other things) are actually still better than players who play USCF, and will give stiffer competition at all rating levels.
The phenomenon of one's "real tournament" ratings being higher than the same person's internet rating is even more pronounced on ICC, where the "serious" chess players play online.
Of course the OP is English so he will be enrolled in the BCF (I assume).
(I will admit I have been a ICC regular for four years now, and outside of playing live chess games, the site is boring as heck! No chat, no "community" no discussion groups.)
Nope. Players on chess.com are worse. So are USCF players playing on chess.com.
Differences:
1. I have time to calculate in USCF events.
2. I am always sober during USCF events.
3. I don't play USCF events at 2:00 a.m.
4. I care about USCF events.
Some folks have suggested that starting at 1200 on chess.com deflates the live ratings here. They may have a point. I was never 1200 USCF. NEVER.
I assume the above isnt ground breaking information, I can beat 1200+ players on online chess (indeed I am currently rated 1170ish on that) and they make the kind of beginner, unlearned type mistakes that I make, yet on blitz I've only beaten a 1000+ player twice (I'm rated 850ish on Blitz). I'm constantly told that a beginner should be around 1000 rated on FIDE ratings. I actually took an FIDE rating estimate test last week (sad I know) and it put me at 1340 based on my responses, so why can I not beat blitz players ranked 1000+ more consistently? Is the blitz pool of players better than "normal". In my experience an 850 player on Blitz is about the same quality as a 1200 player on online chess. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? If I turned up to a beginners tournament what rating should I attribute to myself? I've only been playing chess for about a year on and off and I play what I see and haven't read any books or anything.
Do you have to actually read up on openings etc... to get much better at this game?