Confession of a 1700s Online player

I know of one very easy way to skew your CC rating.

Lose slower, win faster, or the other way around.

I'm not so ecumenical.  I lose slow and fast.

That would work for a short period, but obviously not in the long run.  Even long CC games end eventually.  

Besides, there's only so much you can do to play "faster"-- what if the your opponents have exactly the same idea and slow play you in your winning games?  Or force you to take them all the way to mate 30 moves beyond a point where most people would have resigned?

I can sympathize.  I have a similar rating and feel much the same way.  I'd probably be somewhere in the 1200-1400 range OTB if I were able to play OTB from things I've read (assuming longish time limits), but that's almost entirely because of decent analytical skills and tactical knowledge, plus hard work and maybe a little imagination.  That might be most of chess right there (especially analytical capability), but the things which are absent are so numerous that it often feels like I know nothing at all:

-- correct thinking process (TB really doesn't care if you spent three hours worrying at variations on a useless attack plan as long as you do realize by the time you move that you really need to move your queen this turn lest she get pinned to your king)

-- at least some knowledge of openings, so you don't have to spend a half hour on each of moves three to ten just making sure you aren't committing suicide

-- tactical accuracy under time constraints (which is distinct from knowing what a pin is or how to use it/avoid being trapped by it)

-- how to handle a clock at all

-- pattern recognition.  As long as you can analyze accurately and have some decent grasp of how tactics work, you almost don't need this in turn-based. You just have to keep looking at possibilities until something clicks.

-- endgame techniques commensurate to one's level (as with openings, exhaustive analysis can plaster over a lot of flaws, if not all of them)

-- how to look at and understand positions, where the weaknesses are and how to plan.  Again, sufficient analysis can and does often bring the nuances of a position to light, but heck if it isn't more efficient to be able to do much of it up front and thus prioritize your analytical efforts.  You can't do without that efficiency playing on a clock.

-- pretty much everything remotely psychological about chess.  For instance, OTB you might heed the oft-heard advice to be more aggressive and pose more challenges (even if not necessarily sound) when already losing.  Turn-based, this is often pointless.  If you can work out any non-losing solution yourself, almost assuredly so can your opponent of equal strength, given that he has all the time in the world.

I'm pretty much a neophyte at all of these.  Working hard, making little breakthroughs every day, but still ranging from far behind my analytical skills to pretty much non-existent.  As just one example, I can do tactics puzzles to a 1900 standard untimed (Ipod ap; and on chesstempo was heading rapidly in that direction before giving up standard mode in favor of blitz (timed) mode); but timed I'm only in the 1300s (and pretty much deservedly so) at chesstempo and even lower here (albeit that it's hard to gain ratings quickly at 3 puzzles per day).

I love playing turn-based, but I have so much to learn.

Sounds somewhat familiar. I started playing chess just a bit before new years and have gotten to 1750 (and climbing) online chess. I haven't seriously tried live chess but I was much worse at it, especially in the beginning. A good memory and strong analytical skills are all you need to play some decent correspondence chess it seems.

To combat this I've been spending a lot of time with the tactics trainer for some pattern recognition, currently hovering between 2000 and 2200 although these ratings seem a little too high. However one of my main issues with real chess is correct thinking procedures. I hurry too many moves and don't analyse like I do in correspondence, even if I have the time available. I assume this will get better when I join a club or something though.

After that I'll have to worry about not knowing a single thing about openings..

And average opposition 250 points below your rating.

Its nice to see when someone else can see the forest, the trees and clearly know the difference.

 Current rating that is. I started by joining a fairly low rated tournament, but around what I was after a few starting games. When I finished my games I joined another one which had an avarage rating higher than I was at the time. I also finished my games in that tournament and am still waiting on a single game to finish in both tournaments before I can continue.

Conclusion; I've played people my level, however my level increased so it seems like I've been playing people below it (perhaps I have, but not according to my rating at the time),

Your stats disagree.  Your average opposition is 1488.  Average opponent rating when you win is 1454, and average opposition when you lose is 1684.

Still, incredible numbers for someone who never played the game until a couple months ago.

Actually, until your post I hadn't even noticed this nice little feature of the stats page. It maybe conveys more info about our abilities than our rating itself. 

True, but if you compare my rating in every game I played to my opponent the difference will be small and only due to rating changes after I signed up to the tournament.

A small nuance to the 'starting with chess' comment; I did play a bit as a kid, but not that much and that was 10-12 years ago. I might have been a 1200ish player back then as I was losing a large majority to some of the better kids around who had an ELO (which I did not) of roughly 1500-1600. I haven't really played between then and last December. I guess that's quite a difference from 'never played the game', but I still consider myself new anyways. Especially since most people seem to agree that chess development is a really slow process.

But my real rating will be obviously be lower, mainly because there are no opening books and no analysis boards I guess.

On the topic of avarage opposition; isn't the ELO system taking care of that somewhat? I know from playing Magic (a silly cardgame which used roughly the same rating system) that you would hardly get rating if you beat someone 400 points lower as you're supposed to have 100% against them (which was an ill system for that game as luck was involved; imagine ELO in poker as a comparison). 

JWestlake and RenataCFC - We should play, sounds like we are at a similar point in our chess development.

I basically think of a rating as a rough "How have I been doing lately?"

My high end points to me when I've really had my head in the game for a while. And the rest reveals that sometimes I'm thinking about my girlfriend or golf while I'm making chess decisions.

To the OP.  I think you are underestimating your own ability.  I am just above a 1400, and my average opponent rating is just below 1400.  I'm personally trying to play better players because for me personally, I don't respect consistently playing lower rated players just to get the 3 to 5 rating points which build and build, reflecting a "ego" rating (that's what we used to call it in golf, the opposite of "sandbagging").  You are a strong 1700 player, and your average opponent, although lower than your current rating is still in the high 1600's.  I've never beaten a 1600.  I don't think I'd have a chance against someone like you unless you were drunk and didn't care at all...

Well... chess.com turn-based ratings seem a bit weird to me.  From 1200 to 16 or 1700 turn-based seem to cover about the same range as 1000 to 12 or 1300 OTB... so a few hundred rating points here in the lower level doesn't mean a whole lot... just which players are willing to be diligent enough to not hang pieces consistently.

Another point about online ratings, some people like to go for awhile playing very odd stuff online which skews the ratings further.  I recall master Brian Wall's ICC game of "wack-a-mole" where in the opening you see how many times you can play Nf3-g1-f3-g1-f3 etc before starting to play seriously and then win.  If I recall he won a few games up to 9 or 10 moves.

This is the attitude many have and I do not think it is right.  First of all, you opponent may be drunk or not care at all.  Or they may have had a bad day at work or they may be tired and not focused.  Don't beat yourself, just play.

 Exactly!

I respectfully disagree.  My personal experience is that my game is improving, yet I still am not where I need or want to be.  The above statement reminds me of a particularly nasty thread on this forum a while ago about how if one hangs a piece, it means that you simply don't care.  What a bunch of BS.  Anyway, of all the factors that cause a difference in probability of a higher rated player beating a lower rated player (say an honest 1700 versus and honest 1400), the psychological factor of the fear felt by the lower level player is miniscule.  Don't show the ratings to both opponents and the outcome will be virtually as predictable over a measurable sample size.

It would vary from player to player, but on average, I think the outcome would be different.  I find that many lower rated players will resign against me when the advantage I have is one I know I could blow.  I am just saying, when facing a higher rated player, don't play timidly and understand that they may not be as good as their rating might suggest and are likely very capable of making a major mistake.  Don't give up and don't be intimidated. 

Here's a poem I wrote about a dozen years ago on the subject, when I was still rather new to OTB chess tournaments:

Dumber Number

As I was despairing my rating after a tourney that I went 0 for 3                          

I was approached by an ancient woodpusher who discussed my misfortune with me.

"Now what is your rating?" he asked me. I told him it was just a number.        

"You haven't answered my question". I replied "I'm statistically dumber."    

"Thats impossible!" exclaimed the old geezer, "Do you really mean to imply

that a number equates to your wit?" I told him that figures dont lie.    

Said he "It isnt their honesty, but what stories you think that they tell.

"Our ratings increase when we win, and decrease when we dont fare as well.

"But if what if you infer is true, then your I.Q. goes up when you win.

I cant agree with your logic." "Okay Plato," I snapped, "clue me in."    

"If your opponent leaves a rook hanging, are you wiser for making the capture?

"Do you gloat upon your 'superior game'? How can blunders inspire such rapture?

"Or if he misread the position, what intelligence is thus added to you?"

"I get your point" I said sharply. Replied he, "I hope that you do."

For ratings show, in inverse proportion the errors one makes in his* chess.

Everyone makes mistakes, to be sure; reduce yours and you must progress.

I had never heard such inspiring words, so I turned to him happily

and asked this wise elder his rating, and he mumbled "583".                                                      

* (or her)