Chess Ratings & Improvement on Chess.com

I disagree 

Online ratings are "overrated" (lol) in my opinion. Too many variables are involved beyond every player's control.

There's internet connection strengths, ways of manipulating ratings and rampant "unfair" play... to mention a few.

Just because some has an online rating of "x", doesn't mean they have a corresponding OTB rating of "y".

The anonymous accounts of titled players alone corrupt any online stats you're using.

I've seen online bullet players >2000 play like an 1200 rated player at times. It's like comparing apples to oranges.

True colors start shining through once someone disagrees with this fake.

Nothing I said in this post should generate a reaction like what's about to follow.

No problem.

Hmmmmm...  That's interesting because according to your account information on Chess.com, you have not played a single game on Chess.com and your account has only been active since May 2020.  

Not to draw attention to that, but I don't know how you could make a judgment of online ratings being "overrated" when you have not played any games on Chess.com to shape an informed opinion.  

Things aren't necessarily as complicated as they seem...we can make them as complicated as want though.

Is there some correlation study on chess.com account information and time since creation to judgment ability? If so, your stats are misleading. You're correct about not knowing, playing games on chess.com isn't a requirement for having an opinion.

Your intent was to "draw attention to that", or you would've avoided it altogether. I don't mind though, so don't worry much about it.

Then again, since you believe your blutz rating equates you to a high credibility (higher than some titled players is a possibility), what was the "direct correlation" you found to support your opinion?

My point was...never mind. Your shallow minded reaction confirms my intial thoughts...a BSer

I see that my observation of your failure to play a single game on Chess.com was accurate, but that was not the focus of my comment.

Whatever conclusions are drawn from that fact are relevant to this discussion only so as to inform a judgment of your assessment of the skill level of online players on chess.com.  I merely pointed out that given that you have not played online against opponents on Chess.com, it is unlikely that you would be able to shape an informed opinion about the online players' ratings without having actually played them.

After all, you prefaced your comment by saying "In my opinion" which of course brings into question what that opinion is based on given that you have not played a single game on Chess.com.  

Just as a friendly suggestion...  Perhaps you could just play a couple hundred games on Chess.com and make a more informed statement after you have completed those matches, especially if you are going to judge the quality of players based on their ratings.  

It was and continues to be your entire focus. Again playing 1 or hundreds of games on chess.com qualifies you no better for an opinion about anything related to the topic.

You've played plenty of games on here. Would you say your own rating of 2195 (chess.com blitz) share the "direct correlation" (the one you're avoiding) to your "FIDE" rating of 2500+? I looked at one of your games...neither you or your opponent (in that 1) appeared to have a master level (much less "chess stud") grasp on many concepts neccessary to credibly include yoursel in the upper echelons.

I gave rational reasonings to support my opinion in the first post. Obviously, that's not good enough for you. The issue is a video referenced in another post shares some of those concerns.

If you only wish everyone agree with you...fine.

Merely having any correlation isn't the same as having a strong correlation. Of course, you knew that already (I'm sure) since your completing multiple masters programs before the age most graduate high school. Oh, wait...you haven't completed a single program so you wouldn't be qualified to have an opinion that.

I'll leave you and your forum with the game mentioned (names removed of course):

Edit

Yes, let's be honest and upfront with everyone.

Posting that and blocking

I was playing chess before you were born. I've seen your kind before.

Your comments merely prove the point that I was making about your lack of experience playing chess on Chess.com.  If you were offended in any way by what I stated, then I'm really sorry that you took offense to my accurate assessment or to the shear reality of the situation.  It was not my intention to make you look bad or make you feel inferior in any way with regard to your lack of experience.  Quite the contrary.  My sole intention was to speak the truth with the hope that by doing so you would be able to recognize the honesty and sincerity of my words.   

I realize that it pains you that I brought attention to your lack of experience playing games on Chess.com, but everything that I stated regarding your lack of experience was entirely true.  I merely raised the issue so as to provide the proper context within which to value your "opinion" with regard to the skill level of players who compete online on Chess.com.  I still find it very amusing that you called players on Chess.com "overrated" when you have never played a single opponent on Chess.com prior to posting your comment. 

The irony actually foreshadowed your limited understanding of the game of Chess, but I don't hold it against you.  In fact, I feel rather sympathetic towards you...  because there is something inside that is keeping you from actually playing chess.  Hopefully, whatever it is, you are able to confront it and address it rather than suppressing it or lashing out at those who attempt to point you in the right direction.  

PitifullyPinned, if you wish to refute what I have stated, then I welcome you to offer a retort to my honest statements.  

If not, then the truth shall be the end of it and I shall accept your silence as a form of humble acquiescence to my perspective. 

In either case, I hope to see you in the online battlefield standing across from Me in Live Chess so that I may demonstrate the truth of my words in a showing of fair play and good sportsmanship.   

As with all forms of online discourse, there is always the possibility that you will encounter individuals who will disagree with you for one reason or another.  That is to be expected

While Chess.com does a good job of containing the extent of confrontational behavior, you may encounter someone who seeks to provoke you verbally.  When individuals become aggressive in tone, I choose to simply Block them so that they do not send me any offensive messages & to prevent unnecessary trolling.  

You will always be able to identify a Troll because they will seek out your comments or thread topics in the forums to post negative things and pretend that they are somehow hurt by being blocked from posting their vitriol & negativity.  I would simply recommend ignoring them to an extent or simply blocking them rather than wasting your time trying to convince them not to be a Troll.

Without exception, you will also find that Trolls online will usually have accounts that have only been in existence for a few months because after a while they cannot help but break the established rules, get reported and get banned altogether... in which case their account gets closed or becomes Inactive by User and they have to create a new account (resetting their limited existence again). 

Most if not all Trolls in the forums will also have the characteristic of not playing any Chess on the Chess.com site because their sole purpose is to satisfy a need for verbal confrontation or argument.  

Beyond pointing out the truth or facts verifiable by members by doing a cursory online search, I choose the high road rather than being confrontational.

Anyway...  back to the topic at hand, which is Chess Ratings & Improvement on Chess.com

A while back (a couple of years ago) as I started to get into playing Chess more, I found myself wanting to read about one of the better known Chess Grandmasters, Bobby Fischer.  While controversial in outside respects, I was glad to receive a copy of a book from a friend entitled:  

"Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess" 

I enjoyed reading it and it helped me a lot in my progression as a Chess player.  It didn't result in an instantaneous increase in my skill level or rating, but after a few weeks, I found my skill level increasing.  It is foundational in its approach.  It is about 350 pages long so it does go into detail on certain topics and will prove useful for developing players.  

I think that you can get a copy of it somewhere online for around $7 or so for a portable digital copy.  

I know several chess players who are pretty strong who recommend the book to beginner to intermediate players looking to improve their skill.  However, there may be some issues regarding the controversial nature of the book's focus (namely Fischer) as some of the outside issues regarding his life raise the ire of individuals from varying backgrounds.  So a word of caution on that particular issue aside from the book itself.  

There are many good chess reads out there so if this title doesn't suit you or if you rather not deal with having to explain why you're reading about the controversial Fischer, then there are many other options.

Does anyone else have a Chess title that has helped them to Improve their Chess Rating & Skill on Chess.com? 

Another way to improve your skill is by utilizing the Chess Puzzles online through Chess.com.  By solving puzzles, you learn through step by step movements in particular scenarios.

I know some titled players online who practice puzzles daily for at least 2-3 hours and they swear by its benefits. The speed at which some of these top level players can solve puzzles is amazing as well.  

So, aside from reading great chess books, practicing with the available Chess Puzzles is another good way to improve at chess and push your rating forward.  

Interesting

To date, there are 14,243 players ranked higher than me on Chess.com, which includes the one and only WFM Alexandra Botez who is currently rated 2206 blitz. 

I still have a long way to go, but improvement over time is the key.  

As evidenced by the overall Leaderboard for Blitz on Chess.com, a difference in 4 ratings points places WFM Alexandra Botez (2206) approximately 450 rating points above The_Krieg (2202).  This demonstrates the significant difference in ranking based on each rating point above 2200+ as you move further and further into the elite levels of Chess.  

Very interesting indeed, 2,200+ is already a decent rating and one belong to the top 0.5% chess players, but against an IM/GM this level gets normally crushed. Even with time odds it is very difficult against a GM.

Playing against GM level players is not any more difficult than playing against other highly rated opponents.   There is an intimidation factor that is sometimes attributed to playing against such titled players but once you get past that it's just Chess.

Once you are use to 3/0 Blitz, the time doesn't move any faster either and everything remains basically the same regardless of who you are playing

The major difference comes when you get into positional duels mid-game where the GM is likely setting you up based on past memorized positions, which takes you time to analyze, & anticipate while it leaves the GM with additional time to plan ahead or assess whether the position is working.

Right now, I've eliminated the first 2 factors.  I'm neither intimidated by any opponent having played literally thousands of opponents online and I'm faster than some of the GMs so they basically have to catch me making a mistake or its going to be damn competitive down the stretch to the end.  

I've often wanted to ask regular (ordinary non-professional) players:

Does anyone believe that they can be competitive against GMs on Chess.com?

If so, then do they believe that they can defeat such GMs in blitz 3/0?

Could it be that the reason why GMs are not getting defeated as often by 2200 to 2300 level players is that they rarely have to play 2200 to 2300 level players on Chess.com?

Could it be that in a blitz 3/0 setting, there really isn't that much of difference between the skill level of a 2200 to 2300 level player and GMs who are rated much higher?

Perhaps we don't see the minimalized difference because we rarely get to see open competition between GMs and 2200 to 2300 level opponents because of active filtering on their part or because GMs often repetitively play against their "friends" or a very limited number of opponents ad nauseum.

Playing against the same bunch of opponents over and over again (while highly skilled) has the disadvantage of enabling the GMs to anticipate the moves of their opponents making them predictable.  That is the reason why many if not most GMs don't get better as they feel that they have already reached the top of the mountain.  

I just find it odd that Colby-Covington reaches 2200 like he did and suddenly stopped playing blitz chess altogether.  It's as if there is an underlying reason why he isn't playing blitz chess...  

I plan to ask him whether he feels that 2200 is the pinnacle for him and whether he feels satisfied that having reached 2200, he cannot go any higher.  I honestly think that is the reason why a lot of accounts go inactive or players stop playing rated chess... because they are looking to preserve a particular rating.  

However, I don't want to put words in his mouth so I have to pose the question to him directly.