I remember this as a moderatly successful troll thread, anyway.
blitz/bullet rating is the only thing that matters in internet chess
Sort:
Feb 23, 2015
0
#203
Players rated < 1000 may try to only win on time, but that is probably one of the reasons they are rated < 1000.
For proper players winning on time is but one arrow in the quiver of the fast chess armoury. In 1 minute chess time wins are obviously more common, but 3 minutes is far too long to simply pplay for a win on time with no Plan B.
I liken blitz chess to talking fast. If you can talk and argue fast and sound good, that may mean something. However I would rather have a slow debate, where people take their time to come up with good arguments one way or another. Basically some people's idea of arguing is about "sounding good", replying fast and being in the person's face a bit.
I'm not sure if you've ever noticed, but a lot of "street" people talk extremely fast. I don't even know what they're saying half the time. No doubt there's actually some skill required to talk that fast and understand so quickly, and to sound good while doing it so snappy. And they don't even realize they're doing it, they just think that talking this way is how you talk, and you shouldn't hesitating or you'll be seen as weak. However in the end, if the actual quality of what you're saying is very bad and it all depends on talking snappier than someone else, it's not much good.
tv debating also, I much prefer when there's a relaxed atmosphere and people talk rather than fight and catch out their opponents.
i think people cheat in bullet and blitz way more than correspondance
after all, you get a bunch of threads about time cheating where people gain crucial seconds on the clock while on correspondance those few seconds don't matter
Feb 23, 2015
0
#206
Surely the blitz ratings on this site arent relevant but they do indeed show a players strength(at least a bit ). There is no way that a 2000 FIDE is 1600 blitz on this site.
[COMMENT DELETED]
Till_98 wrote:
Surely the blitz ratings on this site arent relevant but they do indeed show a players strength(at least a bit ). There is no way that a 2000 FIDE is 1600 blitz on this site.
Many strong FIDE who have titles(experts, masters,IMs and GMs) have a low blitz and bullet rating, I not going to embarrass title players by listing their names. Today I view a very strong grandmaster and he was playing a grandmaster whio is 2500 Elo, there were horrible blunder between these strong players, that blitz for you. The test of real strength is otb rating and everything else is cannot be rely on. What about Wesley So, 2770 FIDE but a low 2500 blitz, he drew two games to Carlsen. Blitz and bullet are totally unreliable to gage a players strength, long time control is true game of players strength, no one would say Wesley So is weak because of his low blitz rating.
Feb 23, 2015
0
#209
okay but you have to be honest, the gap between 2700 and 2500 isnt that big. And I believe his ratings are 2600 btw. And a 2500 rated player here is still super super strong. Its true, blitz ratings arent very reliable but they do illustrate a players strength even if it might not be very accurate.
Feb 23, 2015
0
#210
KirbyCake wrote:
i think people cheat in bullet and blitz way more than correspondance
after all, you get a bunch of threads about time cheating where people gain crucial seconds on the clock while on correspondance those few seconds don't matter
Getting a bunch of threads claiming cheating on the clock doesn't mean people cheat on the clock, it just means there are lots of childish people who play Blitz chess but probably don't play correspondance chess!
I've never had anyone post a bad/childish note on my notes page after losing a correspondance gane, but it often happens after a Blitz game. Doesn't mean I cheated, just means they need to grow up.
Till_98 wrote:
okay but you have to be honest, the gap between 2700 and 2500 isnt that big. And I believe his ratings are 2600 btw. And a 2500 rated player here is still super super strong. Its true, blitz ratings arent very reliable but they do illustrate a players strength even if it might not be very accurate.
What about high 2700 GM and playing against a 2500 GMs, their first game was really bad, they play four games and a lot their games ended in blunders, high 2700 GM lost a piece in the endgame and he played the opening bad and the middlegame was bad to, he basically use to time win the game. These are GMs and they make blunders, I have see candidate masters and FIDE masters with a low blitz rating, I am not here to embarrass title players and I won't list their names because of their low blitz rating. I respect their accomplishment as otb players, and for me that is more important than blitz. My friend who is an low rated expert but he has incredible bullet rating of 2400; he never went over 2016 uscf, that is his highest rating otb. Some players are very quick with the mouse and have high blitz rating.
yureesystem wrote:
Till_98 wrote:
Surely the blitz ratings on this site arent relevant but they do indeed show a players strength(at least a bit ). There is no way that a 2000 FIDE is 1600 blitz on this site.
Many strong FIDE who have titles(experts, masters,IMs and GMs) have a low blitz and bullet rating, I not going to embarrass title players by listing their names. Today I view a very strong grandmaster and he was playing a grandmaster whio is 2500 Elo, there were horrible blunder between these strong players, that blitz for you. The test of real strength is otb rating and everything else is cannot be rely on. What about Wesley So, 2770 FIDE but a low 2500 blitz, he drew two games to Carlsen. Blitz and bullet are totally unreliable to gage a players strength, long time control is true game of players strength, no one would say Wesley So is weak because of his low blitz rating.
yes there are many 2000 players with a blitz rating of 1600. Especially since on this site blitz rating always tends to be lower than standard. He should have put something like 1200 and he would have been right.
I think you would not embarrass them by saying their names, having a bad blitz rating is a good thing.
Feb 23, 2015
0
#213
He had an 807 rating. There's a fair chance he only knows how a Queen moves because the computer makes it impossible to play illegal moves!
With blitz there are just too many variables. Sure I wouldn't expect a 2200 blitz player to be a 1400 fide player, but could they be a 1700-1800 fide player if they just so happen to be good at blitz? Sure. If they devoted enough time to blitz and all its tactics, sure.
"I liken blitz chess to talking fast. If you can talk and argue fast and sound good, that may mean something. However I would rather have a slow debate, where people take their time to come up with good arguments one way or another. Basically some people's idea of arguing is about "sounding good", replying fast and being in the person's face a bit."
Very well put.
Feb 24, 2015
0
#216
Elubas wrote:
With blitz there are just too many variables. Sure I wouldn't expect a 2200 blitz player to be a 1400 fide player, but could they be a 1700-1800 fide player if they just so happen to be good at blitz? Sure. If they devoted enough time to blitz and all its tactics, sure.
Sorry, but I dont believe this is possible.
Feb 24, 2015
0
#217
Uhohspaghettio1 wrote:
yureesystem wrote:
Till_98 wrote:
Surely the blitz ratings on this site arent relevant but they do indeed show a players strength(at least a bit ). There is no way that a 2000 FIDE is 1600 blitz on this site.
Many strong FIDE who have titles(experts, masters,IMs and GMs) have a low blitz and bullet rating, I not going to embarrass title players by listing their names. Today I view a very strong grandmaster and he was playing a grandmaster whio is 2500 Elo, there were horrible blunder between these strong players, that blitz for you. The test of real strength is otb rating and everything else is cannot be rely on. What about Wesley So, 2770 FIDE but a low 2500 blitz, he drew two games to Carlsen. Blitz and bullet are totally unreliable to gage a players strength, long time control is true game of players strength, no one would say Wesley So is weak because of his low blitz rating.
yes there are many 2000 players with a blitz rating of 1600. Especially since on this site blitz rating always tends to be lower than standard. He should have put something like 1200 and he would have been right.
I think you would not embarrass them by saying their names, having a bad blitz rating is a good thing.
Having a bad blitz rating is a good thing? And why?
Coz being able to think fast is bad obviously
Feb 24, 2015
0
#219
pearsnow wrote:
Coz being able to think fast is bad obviously
Seriously?
I don't see how being better at fast chess than at slow chess is anything other than focus on impulsive moves.