Can anyone explain the discrepancies between ratings?

Sorry if I'm being dim, but I don't understand why the typical rating spread between the various disciplines is as it is.

The average player seems to have gaps of about 200 between Bullet and Blitz, Blitz and Standard etc. A typical example would be maybe 1100 Bullet, 1300 Blitz, 1500 Standard and 1700+ Live. This can't be simply because everybody plays worse the faster they play; if that was the case, the ratings would all be around the same figure for any one player.

So is the reason maybe that the faster types of game have more specialists, meaning that you hit the rating wall sooner as you increase your rating in them? Or is there some obscure statistical reason?

It is very simple. The average person who plays each type of games varies in standard. The average player attracted to correspondence chess is weak, they are attracted to being able to seek help when stuck and take a long time to make sure they don't blunder etc. The average person attracted to play blitz chess is much stronger, they have a good idea of what openings they like and know enough about middlegame plans to be able to decide upon one without spending too long.

Close to the opposite of this. Also note that you (the OP) are wrong about bullet chess. Blitz chess is widely regarded as having the most deflated ratings. It isn't simply faster = harder. Not at all.

Ok thanks, that makes sense.

Bullet depends to a much greater degree on the quality of your connection/mouse speed then, than on your actual ability? (I don't play it cos I have amazing lag, Blitz is bad enough ... )

I don't know about mouse speed  (maybe you don't know about premoves?) lol :) but a good internet connection is vital. FYI the order of rating inflation on this site is as follows: blitz<bullet<standard<<online. Also note that this is more accurate in the middle rating range. At the extremes, the faster the time control the lower/higher it is possible to be because of the greater range of quility of play possible (theoretically, perfect play is possible in any form of chess but really terrible play is only really possible in speed chess).

I think it has a lot to do with timeouts in online chess. People start games, timeout, give their points to the player pool then are removed from the averages due to inactivity.

Oh yes, I use premoves, but even when I've used one my opponent's clock will sometimes jump back up to +5 sec and I'll have them taken off mine. The connection's the problem, I'm using a stick and it's effin' 'orrible. Oh well ...

Edit - oh right Scott, that also sounds plausible.

Scott is correct of course. There are a lot of smaller reasons that contribute such as that one.

Your assessment of correspondance players is completely wrong. And to say they are weaker is without merit.

I have seen lots of blitz games that are just riddled with blunders from players rated 1700 and higher. So, I could just as easily say people play blitz because they want to win because their opponents often make horrible blunders. But this would be just as inaccurate as your statements.

I believe the rating differences are more about habit and experience.

When you play Blitz, most games are won on time or players resign because they realize they don't have enough time and are honorable enough to quit. It does take a lot of practice and experience to learn to make moves that are not so obviously bad that your opponent can quickly spot them and take advantage of them.

Online Chess requires you to look much deeper into positions. This too is about habit and experience. Habits and experiences that are completely different than blitz. For many, like myself, it is played more as a learning tool.

As you can see, they do require different habits and experiences and some people are more inclined to one more than the other and can often do better in one than the other.

Despite what Scottrf said, very few games are won because of timeouts. I've played about 70 games and have never won/lost a game on time.

I don't think that MCFan's explanation makes sense. Even if player pool A is stronger than player pool B, this does not force the average rating in pool A to differ from the average rating in pool B, since the rating pools are independent.

That is exactly the point! The average rating is the same but the average player is not. Therefore the ratings do not correspond to one another.

@Kleelof - I'm not seeing your point. Nobody is saying that everybody is the same and people don't have a preferance. Some people are beter at longer games, some shorter ones. I personally prefer longer time controls but none of that is not relevant. The fact remains that players new to chess are more attracted to correspondence chess than blitz and that causes the player pool to become weaker and ratings inflated. You can remain ignorant if you like.

Why are you so certain that correspondance players are weaker?

The OP was looking for reasons for the differences in ratings. Your 'explanation' was biased and quite unhelpful. I just chose to give an explanation that was more fair.

I'm sorry you are unable to 'get the point' when someone is trying to be helpful rather than making outragous statements that have no merit or proof.

Great sample out of the millions of games played...

A better question than why am I sure they are weaker is how on earth do you not see that they are weaker? Just how oblivious can somebody be? The OP is new to the site and he has seen such a huge difference that he has started a thread to find some answers yet you just remain ignorant.

My explanation was not biased, it was just above your head. Anyway, why would I be biased against the longer time controls that I personally prefer? Your explanation, if you can call it that, didn't even try to answer his question. You just rambled on about how I was wrong and how fast and long time controls require different skill sets (well duh, not relevant...).

Nobody but you requires any proof to back up my logical arguments. They just understand. If you want proof though I have two different types available to you. I have this article, posted by a user some months ago that mostly agrees with my assesment: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/fide-ratings-vs-chesscom-ratings-explored. There is also the proof of observation, simply browse through some profiles. Find 10 moderately skilled users who have played 100+ games of both blitz and corrspondence chess on this site. If even one of them has a higher blitz rating then it wil not represent the true difference in ratings.

Yeah online chess players are certainly far weaker for the same rating, even to the point that a 1500 blitz game is probably a similar strength or better game to a 1500 online game, despite the extra time and aids you can use.

EDIT: Meant better not worse.

I agree. When I play blitz chess I play 10 minute chess because like I have already said I am better with longer time controls. I would argue that a 1500 opponent in those games plays objectively better chess than a 1500 correspondence opponent would, probably less outright blunders too. Of course, the same could not be said about a 1500 opponent in a 3 minute game.

The real reason is actually more mathematical.  Chess.com uses the glicko rating system.  In this system, rating points are not conserved in a game.  In other words, it is possible for the loser of a game to lose more rating points than the winner of that game gains (and vice versa).  The reason for this has to do with a second factor called rating deviation (abbreviated RD).  A player's RD goes down the more frequently they play games and goes up with inactivity.

Experienced players in chess are usually better than inexperienced players.  So if two players with the same rating play, but one has a much lower RD (meaning they are more experienced), the lower RD player wins slightly more often, meaning that the losing player will lose more points than the winning player gains.  This makes the average rating of the entire server go down over time.  The more games played of a certain type, the more pronounced this effect is.  That's why you see lower ratings in the game types where lots more games are played.

This is an effect that is quite demonstrable on any server with the glicko rating system in place and is well-known.

I like the explanation, and it probably has some truth, but standard/bullet ratings are similar despite what I imagine are much more bullet games played.