It's impossible for blitz ratings to be deflated on this site.
Blitz
Sort:
You're going to need to explain what you mean a bit more.
Compared to what?
Evidence?
Better question, why are the online chess ratings so inflated?
Thats my question
There's no absolute meaning of a 1400, 1600 player etc, the ratings are in comparison to other people in the same pool, not in comparison to your other live ratings, not in comparison to FIDE or USCF ratings.
Thus, the online ratings are not inflated, the blitz ratings are not deflated. The number means nothing by itself.
Scottrf wrote:
There's no absolute meaning of a 1400, 1600 player etc, the ratings are in comparison to other people in the same pool, not in comparison to your other live ratings, not in comparison to FIDE or USCF ratings.
Thus, the online ratings are not inflated, the blitz ratings are not deflated. The number means nothing by itself.
That isn't totally correct I think... In online chess and blitz new players start at 1200, but in online chess you can get to 1700 in 8 games no problem. That doesn't happen in blitz, a 1300 player in blitz is much, much tougher for a 1200 than a 1300 player in online.
So there is a difference in the comparison of player strength, which is the whole point of the numbers.
Razdomillie wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
There's no absolute meaning of a 1400, 1600 player etc, the ratings are in comparison to other people in the same pool, not in comparison to your other live ratings, not in comparison to FIDE or USCF ratings.
Thus, the online ratings are not inflated, the blitz ratings are not deflated. The number means nothing by itself.
That isn't totally correct I think... In online chess and blitz new players start at 1200, but in online chess you can get to 1700 in 8 games no problem. That doesn't happen in blitz, a 1300 player in blitz is much, much tougher for a 1200 than a 1300 player in online.
So there is a difference in the comparison of player strength, which is the whole point of the numbers.
So, 1300 blitz players are underrated, or 1200 blitz players are overrated?
Razdomillie wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
There's no absolute meaning of a 1400, 1600 player etc, the ratings are in comparison to other people in the same pool, not in comparison to your other live ratings, not in comparison to FIDE or USCF ratings.
Thus, the online ratings are not inflated, the blitz ratings are not deflated. The number means nothing by itself.
That isn't totally correct I think... In online chess and blitz new players start at 1200, but in online chess you can get to 1700 in 8 games no problem. That doesn't happen in blitz, a 1300 player in blitz is much, much tougher for a 1200 than a 1300 player in online.
So there is a difference in the comparison of player strength, which is the whole point of the numbers.
It is correct, you obviously didn't read it.
Razdomillie wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
There's no absolute meaning of a 1400, 1600 player etc, the ratings are in comparison to other people in the same pool, not in comparison to your other live ratings, not in comparison to FIDE or USCF ratings.
Thus, the online ratings are not inflated, the blitz ratings are not deflated. The number means nothing by itself.
That isn't totally correct I think... In online chess and blitz new players start at 1200, but in online chess you can get to 1700 in 8 games no problem. That doesn't happen in blitz, a 1300 player in blitz is much, much tougher for a 1200 than a 1300 player in online.
So there is a difference in the comparison of player strength, which is the whole point of the numbers.
Only if you think that blitz and online ratings ought to be similar, which is not logical. Not only are they different forms of chess, but they have also different player pools! So it's not unusual for someone to be rated higher in blitz than correspondence, and vice versa. Me, I'm rated in the 1900s in blitz, bullet and correspondence at the moment, so mine are similar!
Why are the live blitz ratings deflated so much on this site?