blitz/bullet rating is the only thing that matters in internet chess
Sort:
#1
Kasporov_Jr wrote:
I'm tired of people bragging about having '' high '' correspondence chess ratings, yet see thier blitz rating be a measily 1200. Having a 1800+ bullet/blitz rating is more respectable than being a 2000 in Correspondence chess
I'm rating 1850 uscf rating in chess, and my bullet/blitz rating accurately describes it. Correspondence chess is extremely unrealistically long, what tournament in the world will you have more than 2 weeks for a game? If your good at chess, the moves will come to you quick, you dont need 24 hours to analyze.
and it's so easy to cheat in correspodence chess every once in a while, you can look at a chess engince for a couple of moves & it will go unnoticed. But you dont have time to fool around with blitz/bullet.
I disagree, blitz you can be disconncted, lose on a won position, just because your opponent can move the mouse quicker and the quality of blitz game under otb expert and otb master is poor. A otb player should worry about his skills getting sloppy by blitz games, I see a lot poor quality blitz game under expert and master level.
At least in correspondence chess you can think on your move and not worry to lose in a won position because of time, I personally move fast anyway, I take about a minute or two to make my moves and complicated position I take longer, rarely take thirty minutes to make my move in CC. I am more concern with quality than to move fast.
Here example of what I mean, your game with Jayjude, his blitz rating is 2011 and he played poorly not expert level.
I don't know if you see this move 8...Nxg4!, but my bet is you did not.
In correspondence games I noticed much better opening play and no stupid and off-beat opening because your opponent trying to beat you on time. Bullet chess has to be really bad for any player under expert strength, I see player just blunder pieces or even get mate in one move because they did not see it. How can this be quality chess?
It's not quality. However, if you use it as a tool to improve your overall playing, then it is useful.
I play mostly Online Chess. But I also play a little blitz to exercise some basics like not hanging pieces and tactical calculations.
Blitz is way to intense for me. If I want adrenaline rush and sweaty armpits I'd rather play a round of Battlefield or something
yureesystem wrote:
In correspondence games I noticed much better opening play and no stupid and off-beat opening because your opponent trying to beat you on time. Bullet chess has to be really bad for any player under expert strength, I see player just blunder pieces or even get mate in one move because they did not see it. How can this be quality chess?
Indeed. Opening explorer is truly a great tool for learning openings
#152
kleelof wrote:
It's not quality. However, if you use it as a tool to improve your overall playing, then it is useful.
I play mostly Online Chess. But I also play a little blitz to exercise some basics like not hanging pieces and tactical calculations
When do play blitz it is just for fun, not a gage on my otb rating of 2011 USCF. Player think it is life or death and they playing for the world champion and some players think it is a real otb rating "online blitz rating", but it is not.
Jadulla wrote:
Blitz is way to intense for me. If I want adrenaline rush and sweaty armpits I'd rather play a round of Battlefield or something
I just play for fun blitz or bullet.
Aug 13, 2014
0
#130
When you blunder pieces in Blitz it is simply your own fault. My blitz rating also describes m otb rating and in my opinion every good otb player is at least a decent blitz player. I mean I might have the worst internet connection on this site and I am speaking to other people and listening to music during the games and its really not hard to play good intuitonal moves without blundering pieces.
Well guys I found this chart to be quite accurate.
http://www.chess.com/article/view/chesscom-rating-comparisons
When your correspondence rating is 400+ pts higher than Blitz rating, then something is wrong lol. I think a good Blitz player IS a good chess player but at the end of the day Online ratings don't mean anything. Would you write in your resume that you have 2000 correspondence rating or 2000 Blitz in chess.com?
Oraoradeki wrote:
Well guys I found this chart to be quite accurate.
http://www.chess.com/article/view/chesscom-rating-comparisons
When your correspondence rating is 400+ pts higher than Blitz rating, then something is wrong lol. I think a good Blitz player IS a good chess player but at the end of the day Online ratings don't mean anything. Would you write in your resume that you have 2000 correspondence rating or 2000 Blitz in chess.com?
Niether one since they both mean crap in the real world.
I like playing blitz otb. Definitely not on Chess.com.
(no offence)
I used to like playing live chess, but too many connection issues forced me ta stop playing that form indefinitely.
Alas, I don't think any rating should have that much prominence in forums. I figure it's the substance of the poster (and not his respective ratings).
Unfortunately many have little substance other than their inflated ego.
Kasporov_Jr wrote:
I'm tired of people bragging about having '' high '' correspondence chess ratings, yet see thier blitz rating be a measily 1200. Having a 1800+ bullet/blitz rating is more respectable than being a 2000 in Correspondence chess
I'm rating 1850 uscf rating in chess, and my bullet/blitz rating accurately describes it. Correspondence chess is extremely unrealistically long, what tournament in the world will you have more than 2 weeks for a game? If your good at chess, the moves will come to you quick, you dont need 24 hours to analyze.
and it's so easy to cheat in correspodence chess every once in a while, you can look at a chess engince for a couple of moves & it will go unnoticed. But you dont have time to fool around with blitz/bullet.
lol, everyone knows that any online game like chess and the Street Fighter series is just for fun. The wins/losses and ratings in those types of games should not be taken seriously, period, end of story, thread closed...
Kasporov_Jr wrote:
I'm tired of people bragging about having '' high '' correspondence chess ratings, yet see thier blitz rating be a measily 1200. Having a 1800+ bullet/blitz rating is more respectable than being a 2000 in Correspondence chess
I'm rating 1850 uscf rating in chess, and my bullet/blitz rating accurately describes it. Correspondence chess is extremely unrealistically long, what tournament in the world will you have more than 2 weeks for a game? If your good at chess, the moves will come to you quick, you dont need 24 hours to analyze.
and it's so easy to cheat in correspodence chess every once in a while, you can look at a chess engince for a couple of moves & it will go unnoticed. But you dont have time to fool around with blitz/bullet.
I think they are just ratings. In honesty there is no need to boast about them they go up and down depending on the level of honest playing.
This is just computer playing and in all play I expect my opponent is been honest. I have seen my ratings go down to nearly nothing but the more one plays and studies it has to be said more confidence is gained.
I like chess.com. To my knowledge there is no chess club where I live and I have never played accross the board chess. I learned the rules of chess from a "Beginners Chess" book over 50 yrs ago and never had a chance to play until I discovered chess.com recently. Some might think playing on the computer is not perfect. And I agree, but it is better and more effective then nothing.
In an ordinary friendly game without putting an over emphasis on time is there an average time one should take between moves. Also what is the longest time one can officially have to make a move? Please and thanks.
For all the people who play Over the Board Chess and Computer Chess I should think it all comes down to having a quality opponent. For me I would choose OTB above the computer but there lies the issue - I feel one will fall back to the computer - as to find an opponent who will readily play at this level would be a rare find.
If one cheats it is a move against themselves.
The idea that a move will "come quick" to a good player is just stupid and ignorant. The idea of c.c. is to find good moves.
Take the time control in some tournaments, though. 90|30+60min at move 40. The point of that time? To evaluate positions thoroughly and to play the best moves. In bullet? Look, instinct, play. And the result? You fall into a trap. And then your opponent loses on time. What's the point in playing a match that you won't finish because of some issue on time?
Optimissed wrote:
The idea that a move will "come quick" to a good player is just stupid and ignorant. The idea of c.c. is to find good moves.
I think, if a blitz player has a strong slow play skill, they can find good moves during a blitz game. I mean, they must or there would not be 1900+ rated blitz players.
However, I doubt they regularly find the strongest move, which is something condusive to CC play. One of the many reasons I prefer it.
Are people who only play blitz and bullet up to the challenge of chess with longer time controls where we can see what they are doing better?
You could just as easily ask if the people who only play tournament chess up to the challenge of speed chess where we can see what they are doing better.
If you never play a time control you're not going to be as good at it.