The main reason the ratings are so different is that every other rating is calculated in relation to an opponent.
You can't do that with puzzles, at least not before puzzle battle was offered.
How come my puzzle rating is so high, when my other ratings are so low?
Sort:
Welcome to reality.
Seriously though, the reason is that in puzzles, you're looking for the best move. In games, your looking for best move after you run out of books moves, on every move you play, so your pretty much limited by the clock on exactly how much time you can spend on any given move.
Also, most chess players can only calculate so far in advance, and eventually one of the players has to launch an offense, so the other player starts to use time trying to find counterplay. That's when both players really start to burn the time on their clocks. If the defender finds any counterplay at all, the offender suddenly REALLY has to burn time on their clock trying to salvage their attack.
Yeah, my puzzles rating is about 2300, while my blitz is 1600...
lol one of my ratings is 745, cant remember which, but my FIDE rating is just over 1100 and my lichess rating is over 1500 lol
May 12, 2020
0
#26
LunarWolf01 wrote:
lol one of my ratings is 745, cant remember which, but my FIDE rating is just over 1100 and my lichess rating is over 1500 lol
bro dude my uscf is literally only 1600 I couldn’t get it up before Covid hit :/
on the other hand hopefully that means when otb gets going there’s another couple hundred elo jumps waiting for me
checkmateohwait wrote:
if you look, my puzzle rating is ~1900, but my other ratings are about 1000-1100.
I've always wondered why. Any ideas?
for me, puzzles at a 1000 to 1100 are super easy, and winning a 1000 to 1100 person in chess is not that easy. my puzzle rating is 2250, and rapid is about 1390
May 12, 2020
0
#29
Newbao wrote:
for me, puzzles at a 1000 to 1100 are super easy, and winning a 1000 to 1100 person in chess is not that easy. my puzzle rating is 2250, and rapid is about 1390
I used to struggle with 1100s for a short time, but mainly the easy way goes like this: if you don’t hang a piece they will :-)
usually this is achieved through tactical means, and you show no lack of skill in that area.
the strategy I indicated above works up to 1700 
you probably need to go over your games and see the recurring tactical themes there.
that means youre doing puzzles wrong, the tactics arent translating into your games.
it might be that i can really recognize patterns well bc/ i do have photographic memory. I also play lots of puzzles.
SNUDOO wrote:
Newbao wrote:
for me, puzzles at a 1000 to 1100 are super easy, and winning a 1000 to 1100 person in chess is not that easy. my puzzle rating is 2250, and rapid is about 1390
I used to struggle with 1100s for a short time, but mainly the easy way goes like this: if you don’t hang a piece they will :-)
usually this is achieved through tactical means, and you show no lack of skill in that area.
the strategy I indicated above works up to 1700
you probably need to go over your games and see the recurring tactical themes there.
XD
llama44 wrote:
He played ~50 games in the last ~40 days and his rating is stable at 1000, so I don't think it's that.
Not everyone... but it's pretty common to have a tactics rating about 400 points above your blitz. So someone like @snudoo I'd say is unusually good at tactics compared to other ratings.
But @checkmateohwait gap is even more.
I guess not only does the OP do a lot of tactics, but he don't know much about anything else, and doesn't review his games to try and improve on things. Just a guess.
I do analyse every game i win or lose to see what I need to work on and what i do well at. I retry my mistakes. it has this cool thing where you can see what the computer thinks you need to work on tactics-wise. it helps a lot but sometimes it gets it wrong
I take chess classes too but eh
May 13, 2020
0
#34
checkmateohwait wrote:
llama44 wrote:
He played ~50 games in the last ~40 days and his rating is stable at 1000, so I don't think it's that.
Not everyone... but it's pretty common to have a tactics rating about 400 points above your blitz. So someone like @snudoo I'd say is unusually good at tactics compared to other ratings.
But @checkmateohwait gap is even more.
I guess not only does the OP do a lot of tactics, but he don't know much about anything else, and doesn't review his games to try and improve on things. Just a guess.
I do analyse every game i win or lose to see what I need to work on and what i do well at. I retry my mistakes. it has this cool thing where you can see what the computer thinks you need to work on tactics-wise. it helps a lot but sometimes it gets it wrong
I take chess classes too but eh
Well, I'm sorry to have phrased it so negatively 
I guess you're just very good at tactics.
May 13, 2020
0
#35
ForeverChessYay wrote:
CaruanaVirus wrote:
that means youre doing puzzles right, the tactics are 100% translating into your games. You should be proud
agreed
wow good job editing the other guy's post
Spelenderwijs You are right nobody cares
May 13, 2020
0
#37
I found these posts interesting
CaruanaVirus wrote:
that means youre doing puzzles wrong, the tactics arent translating into your games.
checkmateohwait wrote:
it might be that i can really recognize patterns well bc/ i do have photographic memory. I also play lots of puzzles.
Because IMO even though we say solving tactic puzzles is very useful (and it is) we're not talking about the details of what's going on.
I think solving puzzles do a lot of good things:
1) Trains your ability to visualize
2) Forms good calculation habits (looking at forcing moves first, switching up the move order when one sequence doesn't work)
3) Somewhat improves static analysis (first look for loose pieces, undefended king, look for which pieces are the most active, which lines or squares pieces can combine on)
4) And of course builds knowledge of tactical patterns (fork, pin, discovered check, etc.)
---
But maybe if someone has a good memory, they're not getting the full benefit, because they can get by with mainly doing number 4 on that list... or something. I don't know.
But also like I said previously, during a game these things are kind of separate. First you look for tactics as if it's a puzzle, but then you have to play a safe move that ideally also increases your piece activity, and that non-tactical type of move isn't something you learn about by solving puzzles.
May 13, 2020
0
#38
llama44 wrote:
I found these posts interesting
CaruanaVirus wrote:
that means youre doing puzzles wrong, the tactics arent translating into your games.
checkmateohwait wrote:
it might be that i can really recognize patterns well bc/ i do have photographic memory. I also play lots of puzzles.
Because IMO even though we say solving tactic puzzles is very useful (and it is) we're not talking about the details of what's going on.
I think solving puzzles do a lot of good things:
1) Trains your ability to visualize
2) Forms good calculation habits (looking at forcing moves first, switching up the move order when one sequence doesn't work)
3) Somewhat improves static analysis (first look for loose pieces, undefended king, look for which pieces are the most active, which lines or squares pieces can combine on)
4) And of course builds knowledge of tactical patterns (fork, pin, discovered check, etc.)
---
But maybe if someone has a good memory, they're not getting the full benefit, because they can get by with mainly doing number 4 on that list... or something. I don't know.
But also like I said previously, during a game these things are kind of separate. First you look for tactics as if it's a puzzle, but then you have to play a safe move that ideally also increases your piece activity, and that non-tactical type of move isn't something you learn about by solving puzzles.
To build up some more, some 2400+ puzzles with an attacking theme usually involve finding the quiet moves that choke out the enemy, which follows a single general idea. If you don't see the idea, you can't see the tactic. In annotated games those are usually marked with an exclam (!). I find those puzzles frustrating and helpful at the same time.
Not to mention the number 2 who was number 1 for quite some time and showed it all off on his profile as being the number 1 in the world with his chess.com tactics rating whoohoo! And now he's showing off to be the consecutive number 1. Who cares about your chess.com tactics rating? I certainly don't.
well he can walk the walk, so he can talk the talk :\