Blitz rating shows your true rating in blitz, CC rating shows your true rating in CC :P
Does Bullet/Blitz chess show your true rating?
Sort:
I wouldn't put much faith in internet bullet chess heroes with 2000+ ratings. I'm pretty sure I can beat 95% of them in a long timed otb game any day.
FirebrandX wrote:
AtahanT wrote:
I wouldn't put much faith in internet bullet chess heroes with 2000+ ratings. I'm pretty sure I can beat 95% of them in a long timed otb game any day.
A very bold statement considering your blitz strength. Still, you might have a shot if they only played fast and not smart. Now had you claimed that about 2000-rated blitz players, you'd have been delusional.
Well blitz is closer to real chess. I'm talking about people who never ever play anything except 1 0 bullet. I think I'd crush players like that in a 90min+30sec otb game quite easily.
If that is all they play they certainly do not know how to make good and strong moves. Without strong moves you'll be dead lost in slower games.
A high bullet rating shows that you are brilliant with a mouse.
algernonn wrote:
Schachgeek wrote:
It might be more accurate to say blitz tests your chess ability/instincts at that time control.
You won't be able to convince me that people play the same strength at 40/90 or correspondence they do in a 5 minute game. It just does not compute.
I know some players who feel they play better at faster time controls based on their results/ratings. But they're overlooking the fact that their play could very well be refuted at slower speeds.
I think it's more likely that players who take the game seriously play better at slower time controls, and most folks who have been around chess anylength of time understand that.
Blitz it's about instincts. Often you have to make a move based on past experience/intuition without calculating. Nobody says one will play at the same strenght in CC as in blitz, but at the same relative strenght. Meaning that, if I score against a FM 3 points out of 10 in blitz, the same thing will happen in a CC game, provided that none of us is using computer assistance.
On the other hand, if we choose to believe in Santa Claus, then we can explain everything. For instance, that you can play better than a GM but have no idea about three-fold repetition, as it is the case with the top player here.
Yes blitz is about instinct but if you have developed this instinct playing blitz you will hit a wall in development at some point. GMs play good blitz because they have developed instincts for positions in slow games. By trying to learn chess by playing blitz is only going to make you play moves that will not cut it after a certain level and you'll get stuck there. So it really depends on how the person has reached his blitz rating if you want to say something about his slow rating.
Agreed, there are so many factors in addition to just cheating that can cause a discrepancy in a player's level of play from one time control to the next. One great example is opening preparation which is much more important in Live chess time controls and a player who's not booked up would probably struggle more there than in turn based where opening databases are allowed and they can use them to compensate for their lack of opening knowledge.
The additional time itself can be a factor as well -- I play much better in slower time controls because I actually take all of the time allotted to try to flush out the blunders I'd invariably make if forced to move in seconds instead of hours or days. While it's true that my opponent is also afforded the same amount of time, not all of them use it -- indeed there are many players with dozens, even hundreds of concurrent games who make each of their turn based moves in a matter of seconds just as they might for blitz. Not to pick on Kacparov, but I suspect he's a great example of this and is most certainly underrated in turn based due to his game load compared to his opponents' and, I suspect, the resulting pace of his play in each of those games (please, correct me if you disagree Kacparov).
algernonn wrote:
Grobe: yes, some variations exists, because we're humans, not robots. But it will never be the case that a class A player OTB would play blitz as a class D player and CC as a GM. It's simply impossible!
I don't disagree that this should generally be the case, but I think that there is probably enough variability that's the result of factors other than dishonest play that you simply can't reliably say that the correlation always holds.
An extreme example like the one you cite, particularly when one of the outliers puts the player at the top of the rating pool, would certainly be the kind of discrepancy that I'd say warrants a much more thorough look to see whether conclusive evidence of dishonest play can be found, but isn't conclusive evidence in and of itself.
My 3|0 blitz games are usually no worse quality than my cc games (even if I thought some time).
Kacparov wrote:
My 3|0 blitz games are usually no worse quality than my cc games (even if I thought some time).
That's because you have >1000 simultaneous games going on. If you would cut that number down closer to 10 and still use as much time to cc as now, I'm sure your cc rating would increase several hundred points.
P.S. I'm by no means saying that you should do that.
yeah that's my best of 2272 from last summer. still lower than my bullet, for example :)
that's the biggest nonsense ever. I'm bad with the mouse and great in bullet
May 17, 2010
0
#34
PawnAvalanche wrote:
Sceadungen wrote:
A high bullet rating shows that you are brilliant with a mouse.
Bingo.
you cant say this when high rated players have much higher bullet ratings (in general) compared to much lower rated players! I mean this when you look at players ratings in blitz, bullet and correspondance.......there has to be much more of a link about being good with a mouse! I think its the chess expertise and experience that win out in a bltiz game more likely that the better mouse
algernonn wrote:
Kacparov, you are VERY fast with the mouse if you manage to make 78 moves in one minute:
http://www.chess.com/livechess/game.html?id=20998138
Or maybe the server is much slower here.
Lol game, was he trying to prove something or why the stalemate?
Oh and with premoves it's not really that hard to make 78 moves.
I've never said that there wasn't a rough correlation on the whole, I've said that you can't expect to reliably predict one rating based on the other on an individual basis and I've given many reasons why and provided a number of specific examples (at your request, no less) that back this up.
My motivation? It's a fact, and to insist that any discrepancy or inconsistency is immediately indicative of dishonest play is disingenuous, misleading, dangerous and, as you well know, when levied against an individual as you've just implicitly done, against the ToS of the site.
Skeptikill wrote:
PawnAvalanche wrote:
Sceadungen wrote:
A high bullet rating shows that you are brilliant with a mouse.
Bingo.
you cant say this when high rated players have much higher bullet ratings (in general) compared to much lower rated players! I mean this when you look at players ratings in blitz, bullet and correspondance.......there has to be much more of a link about being good with a mouse! I think its the chess expertise and experience that win out in a bltiz game more likely that the better mouse
Yes, a high Bullet rating means more than just a fast mouse. My friend told me he once saw a GM exhibition where he game himself 1 minute and all challengers 5 minutes, and he beat them all OTB. Playing strong moves is always a factor in any form of chess.
algernonn wrote:
Yes Schachgeek, now it's very clear why you make a continuous effort to prove that there is no correlation between blitz, standard chess and CC. Very clear! Your blitz rating is 1484, with your best victory 1496, while your CC rating is 2556. Now that's a gap! There are many FM's and IM's who play seriously CC here and find impossible to achieve your rating.
I don't know what is Grobe's motivation. I bet that he is a lawyer and likes to argue just for the purpose of arguing. It's good practice after all. Remember OJ Simpson? No evidence is enough if you have good lawyers.
You can't just calculate the overall rating, you also have to look at how many games he has played in each respective category, as well as the overall strength of the field.
CC ratings tend to be higher both because people devote more time to it, and thus play more games.
Moreover, the CC community overall is rated much higher than the Live Chess community. I doubt there are that many players in Live Chess rated 2000+, but there are a lot of CC opponents you can challenge if you're over 2000.
Most people only play a handful of blitz games here.
As I have said before, the better player at regular chess will be the better player at blitz, so in this sense, the blitz rating is indicative of true rating; but good players will always make better moves when playing with regular time controls: it takes an additional skill to succeed at regular chess versus blitz, so no, it is not a true indicator of overall strength.
In my game, we both had about 10 seconds around move 40, but the server was quite slow and it allowed us to make premoves. The stalemate was also premoved. At the end we both had like 1 or 2 seconds.
No. I'd say that 60+ minute games are the best indicator of one's true strength over the board.
What made you say or how you come up with this ?