Speaking only for myself, the faster the game, the worse I play. My CC rating is currently 1641, and my blitz rating is hundreds of points lower. I don't believe I have that inborn aptitude for the game that allows for instant sight of what's going on, but up around 30 minutes per game, everything evens out.
The reason I play very few standard games, though, is that I can never predict when I'm going to have a solid hour to play. Thus it's play poorly in blitz and play much better in CC.
I think everyone is different, for example in contrast to MSteen, my CC rating is 1624 currently while my Blitz is 1552 on Chess.com. However I play CC similar as I do live, which could be why the two ratings are so similar. To the player you've left unmentioned, have they played Live as often as CC, and have they done so recently? What is their time/move in CC? It could be that he takes a lot of time and effort into his CC games compared to his Live games on Chess.com. Who knows, you could message him and ask! :)
I seem to lose too many live games on time often when i am way ahead so i struggle to get past 1600 and stay there but my USCF rating is 1870 and i can play with the Experts , so for me slow time controls are better
As people leave the site or are banned their games time out so in effect everyones rating is pushed up. Online ratings are pushed up because of this and that the more serious players tend to play more blitz or rapid so their long games come OTB.
Some people don't take live seriously, play when drinking or not in the mood or have a bad connection so get timouts etc.
If you spend time on your moves in correspondences chess it's not uncommon to have a fairly large disparity, from experience if you don't have a few hundred points between them you are moving too quickly in online chess.
His CC games are definitely more recent (even though he has played a few hundred live games) so I'd assume maybe he has just improved over time and doesn't play much Live any more. Perfectly plausible.
I wouldn't like to message them asking incase it comes off as accusatory. That's not my intention. I Just wanted to hear others opinions / experiences of their own ratings.
I seem to lose too many live games on time often when i am way ahead so i struggle to get past 1600 and stay there but my USCF rating is 1870 and i can play with the Experts , so for me slow time controls are better
1870 USCF? I'd like to play a game with you sometime! :)
As people leave the site or are banned their games time out so in effect everyones rating is pushed up. Online ratings are pushed up because of this and that the more serious players tend to play more blitz or rapid so their long games come OTB.
Some people don't take like seriously, play when drinking or not in the mood or have a bad connection so get timouts etc.
If you spend time on your moves in correspondences chess it's not uncommon to have a fairly large disparity, from experience if you don't have a few hundred points between them you are moving too quickly in online chess.
That's also a good point. I tend to only play Blitz if I have had a few beers and am bored. I don't really care about the rating. I suppose lots of people are the same. With CC I only really play tournaments so I am more concerned about winning matches.
Trying to correlate the two ratings doesn't make too much sense as these are two separate game environments.
Some players prefer CC and dabble with live games and vice-versa. So you need to exhaustively look at players who have played, say 100 recent live games with slow/standard time controls and 100 recent online games before you try an apples-to-apples comparison of their perfomance on both.
Now within this refined data set, if you do find a 1800 CC player who is struggling at 1150 on live chess (with reasonably slow time controls), that's definitely weird.
If the 1150 games are only bullet + blitz, it once again gets murky to justify the difference ... though I will agree with the OP, 1150 even at blitz time controls implies a fairly "low" # of stored patterns in one's head which cannot explain a 1800 on CC.
If they only play CC and have never really played any live chess ever then it makes sense to me... and this is what I usually think when they're 1800 CC and 1200 or lower on live chess. I imagine they get really nervous in a live game, and to make it worse constant use of the analysis board means they can't calculate worth anything.
That's just my imagination, who knows the real reason. I've seen some 1800 CC players play some terrible games before and I imagine they get to 1800 by pulling out the analysis board and just try every different move hoping there's a tactic.
The ones that really puzzle me are the ones who say they have ____ USCF rating but are many hundreds of points below that number on all their other ratings. Unless they're lying I imagine them being incredibly slow thinkers and on CC they don't bother trying very hard (but then why play 1000s of games? maybe the OTB rating they quoted is a decade old?)
Anyway, who knows. It's not common to see is it.
Now within this refined data set, if you do find a 1800 CC player who is struggling at 1150 on live chess (with reasonably slow time controls), that's definitely weird.
I might not share that opinion with you Shivsky... 
I am certainly not great at CC, but I'm doing OK. When I started playing LIVE chess again recently I found (to my shock) that I am HORRIBLE at it! And the reasons for this are not weird! 
) In LIVE chess I stick to 1. ..e5 when my opponent plays 1. e4, which is very different.
) was, until I started playing LIVE again!Hopefully those issues will clear up in a couple of weeks, but it's going to require some serious efforts from my end... 
Please don't judge me...
I have a neurological disorder that makes live online play difficult. In CC I can fully compensate. I enjoy live online play, and that's what I primarily do here on chess.com, but I play intuitively (minimal calculation) and make lots of errors. In isn't unusual for me to have an 800-point separation between blitz and CC. My real-world ratings were 2100-2200 for CC and 1900-2000 for OTB tournaments and blitz.
I think a lot of people think that because they are 1600 online, 1200 live that means they are poor at live chess, when in reality it's often a similar standard of player you would play at each rating.
Yeah, it's normal to have a gap of a few hundred points between online and live to begin with. If I saw someone with 1500 online and 1500 blitz I would wonder why they're so bad at online of they have a 1500 blitz rating :p
Yeah, it's normal to have a gap of a few hundred points between online and live to begin with. If I saw someone with 1500 online and 1500 blitz I would wonder why they're so bad at online of they have a 1500 blitz rating :p
I play CC games similar to my Live games so that contributes to my CC and Blitz rating being close (less than 100 point difference). I like CC because it's the bridge between being able to play a longer time control game and having to commit to sitting down for 30 or more minutes at a time (which is why I have rarely played Standard Live on Chess.com). I usually make my moves within two minutes consideration in CC though, so I wonder if I sat down and analyzed each position and carefully gave it a lot of thought if I'd perform better at CC and how much.
I'm also interested in how someone's Tactics rating (if they have one) is compared to their Blitz and CC ratings too. Comparisons are just fun to look at to me...Hopefully my appreciation of statistics will help me when I take that math course next year. :p
Tactics ratings seem to be a few hundred points above online ratings again.
Yeah, it's normal to have a gap of a few hundred points between online and live to begin with. If I saw someone with 1500 online and 1500 blitz I would wonder why they're so bad at online of they have a 1500 blitz rating :p
I play CC games similar to my Live games so that contributes to my CC and Blitz rating being close (less than 100 point difference). I like CC because it's the bridge between being able to play a longer time control game and having to commit to sitting down for 30 or more minutes at a time (which is why I have rarely played Standard Live on Chess.com). I usually make my moves within two minutes consideration in CC though, so I wonder if I sat down and analyzed each position and carefully gave it a lot of thought if I'd perform better at CC and how much.
I'm also interested in how someone's Tactics rating (if they have one) is compared to their Blitz and CC ratings too. Comparisons are just fun to look at to me...Hopefully my appreciation of statistics will help me when I take that math course next year. :p
Looking at your last 3 losses, you also seem to randomly resign positions for no reason, even if you were winning. Breaking this habit will help your rating too lol.
when i played more seriously, i was 1800ish in CC and probably around 1200-1300 in online. that was mostly because i would play online just for fun and i'd play openings that were risky simply for the fun of it.
@Wafflemaster
I resigned those because I wanted to do an end of year tally result (which I made a blog post) so I needed to finish those games immediately before the end of the year. :)
...does it become a little suspect for someone's CC rating massively outweigh their Live rating? or does it at all? I don't know.
Personally I am horrible at 10min or less games. Quite a bit better at 15min + and much better at CC where I can use the analysis board and take as much time as I need to think over the move. I would imagine this is quite normal. The more time you have, the more thought you can put in, the better the move you will make. Makes sense.
Recently I came across a player with a CC rating in the late 1800s, whilst their Live ratings were around 1150blitz and 1250 standard. I know some people don't really play live (I don't usually) but this player had a few hundred live games under his / her belt.
Is it unusual fror someone to be so massively better at CC than Live or is that 600 point difference fairly normal amongst players?
It can only be an assumtion, because I have never been an 1800+ rated player so I don't know but, at an online rating of 1419, I would consider an 1800 player a bit of a mammoth to overcome if I had to play them in a tournament. I would, ofcourse, try my best but would expect them to outplay me. Isn't the rating difference I have given as an example apples and oranges when determining a players skill?
I suppose the question is, can someone with a good enough understanding of the game to reach 1850+ in CC really be at an 1150-1250 range when it comes to Live chess? I would have thought their ability would shine through over players rated in that range regardless of the time constraints.
I don't mean this as an accusation of cheating and would never name the player I am talking about. I am genuinely curious as to how much real impact the clock can have on a players ability at all levels.
Are most titled players much better at CC than OTB / Live? It would be interseting to hear some of their opinions on the topic. How does it impact their game?