Highly Effective Strategy To Increase Chess Ratings

"play a kind of game like you've never played before"

So basically,

Want to improve your chess rating? Play better chess!!!

On a serious note though, if you play better players I think you are less likely to pick up bad habits which could bog down improvement.

They're two different games.

Well, maybe you are right. But, no, it appears to me that there is only one game: chess.

Speed, regular play, turn based...these are just different time limits for playing the exact same game. With the exception, of course, in turn based chess the use of a database is allowed.

I can see how one can have a differing rating in these situations. For example, I avoid blitz and bullet because I have found that they breed a propensity for me to play sloppy moves.

With correspondence chess, one has access to opening book databases and analysis boards and a great amount of time. I personally will not play with aid of any kind. My view is that players should learn at least the common open lines and not need an assist. That's just my belief; I can't bring myself to making moves decided from a database.

It is understandable how one's rating can vary form one of these types of gamers to another. But, shouldn't that all be baked into the cake? Shouldn't someone of a certain competence get a rating within a nominal +/- form one type game to another? Isn't a spread of 500...700...900 points excessive?

Someone may play 1000 at blitz, 1200 at long chess...yet be 1800 at turn based. Does this make sense? Seems to me they are really a 1200 player.

Where did I go wrong in my thinking?

 No, why should I feel queasy?

The value of the rating is only relative to the environment. The chess.com rating isn't comparable to the USCF rating. Different systems, different environments.

Nope. 

If you try to compare ratings between OTB, Live Chess, Online Chess, or on some other chess server, then you probably don't understand the rating system and what the figures mean.

 probably don't understand the rating system and what the figures mean.

No, that's not it. I understand the implications.

All I am saying is that it seems odd that chess ratings can be so elastic and relativistic, depending on the time factors and especially that the use of a computer database can provide a steroid boost of, for example, 700 points, and that this valuation has some sort of genuine meaning.

I am not attempting to "rock the boat". Live and let live. Just doesn't seem right, though, if someone has a five inch weenie that by stretching it with a bungie cord they can now claim it to be nine inches.

I can't believe I said that. Weenie means frankfurter...nothing otherwise. But, I must go. I have a train to catch.

My ICC blitz rating is below 1000. The last two OTB tournaments I've put in 1700+ performances. *shrug*

I'll point out the faults.

You ask if a certain person should get a rating withing a +/- from one game to another. They are completely different ratings for a reason.

One "point" in one type is as similar to another "point" in another type as an Amercian dollar, a Canadian dollar, and an Austrailian dollar. They are all currency and all called dollars but they are not equivalent.

Things such as the size of the playerbase and amount of games played affect the value of a single point in different categories IIRC.

Another thing is that the lglicko system is not the ELO system so don't even try to bring USCF ratings into this because they are not relevent.

Its like comparing apples with oranges.  Do you feel queasy that an apple has a thinner skin than an orange?

Lookee...the guys with the high turn based ratings but low live ratings always say these things. Helps inflate the ego? Maybe.

It is apples and apples.

And queasy was simply a polite word. English is not my native tongue. Maybe squirmy is a better word.

Lookee... the guys who have no ratings always say these things. Hungry for attention? Maybe.

It is apples and oranges. Eat something other than pears and maybe you can figure out the difference.

Well, then, in our opinions we must differ.

"Where did I go wrong in my thinking?"

Have you played otb tournament chess?

If you have, play some games here.  The difference between the two games will become clear very quickly.

I'm going to try it. I'll double my rating to 3700, and then throw down the challenge to Carlsen.

Yes, I have. Thanks. I'll give it a go.

That's why I liked writing in this forum many a good guys are ready to take on anything under the sun. Keep up the good work guys, luv yah!

I sure did raised some furor with my simple suggestion on how to increase turn-based rating. While it's alright to play against guys with similar ratings, it is much rewarding if you are able to defeat talented players in upper categories. The thing is, the benefit you get from playing against superior talents is that it makes you tougher because you are exposed to much tougher moves --you get used to it,  and when you come back to play against your usual opponents you become much more confident. It's like Manny Pacquiao taking on big guys like Oscar De la Hoya or Antonio Margarito the betting odds become great in favor of Pacquiao, and when he returns to fight in the same weight class, more boxing fans go with Manny --he's more bankable now.  

400 points difference? Easy. All of my losses on 10 minutes or less are relatively simple tactical mistakes that I don't make in turned based where I spend enough to time to thoroughly look at a position. 

Analyzing a turn based game actually teaches me something. Analyzing a blitz game is "oops I miscounted that." 

No conspiracy and no I don't feel queasy.

The simple fact is that someone like me who's only been really playing for a couple of years needs to take more time to assess the position of all the pieces and the general tactical layout.  It also takes time for me to go through every move of every piece and every countermove by my opponent's pieces in my mind.  Something I can do at liesure with online chess when I set the time to one move per 3 days or more.  However, if I'm playing a 15 minute game, I'm rushed to the point where I don't always make good moves because I don't have enough time to accurately assess the situation on the board.   Therefore, when I have plenty of time to work through all the possible moves and positions, my rating will be higher than when I don't.

It's absolutely normal here to have online ratings 300 points higher than live ratings. That's probably because an awful lot on new players register, start a few games ,timeouts and never come back . A constant income of "free" rating points at the lower end should explain the enourmous inflaction.