Huge difference between live- and online-rating?

I recently read a thread in this forum about cheating and how to spot cheaters and someone said that he gets suspicious if his opponent's online-rating is much higher than his standard-live-rating. So I'm getting paranoid. Not because I'm cheating but because my online rating (~1650) is far above my live-rating (~1080). That's a huge difference and I wanted to ask if that's a general trend or if it's really that strange.

I started to get really obsessed with chess in the last few months and I use all my spare time to study it by watching chess-related videos, reading books, reviewing games, etc and I think I made huge progress in understanding some key concepts of the game, stuff like evaluating a position, making a plan, strategic concepts, tactics, and so on. But it seems that I can't apply all these things in a 30-minute-game, because the time pressure makes me nervous as hell and I ruin most of my games by really bad blunders. Complete blackout. 

Whereas in online-chessgames with 3 days per move I'm focussed, I've enough time to evaluate the position, make plans, consider all kinds of tactics and recheck every move before actually submitting it and, as it seems, with great success. I even beat someone with a ~2000 rating. 

So, what are your thoughts on this, and what's the difference between your ratings? And, maybe some tips on how to cope with time pressure, avoiding dumb blunders? Thanks.

I'm 45. I can't think quickly. My online rating (~1600) is right in line with my USCF rating (~1500). That my blitz rating is in the toilet is proof of nothing but that I've got a slow mind and frequently play blitz while consuming tasty adult beverages.

You're not alone. I'm in the same boat - my live rating is about 400 pts lower than my online, mainly because I make even more dumb mistakes at 15|10 than I do at 3 days. I haven't tried 30 minute games yet, that might help some.

I make so many stupid moves in time control chess it's not funny, so my online is higher. I think it just shows that I am not good at time management yet, and tend to play the first good looking move without thinking about my opponents plans.

My live ratings are 400 pts below my online rating.

My online is 1900 while my live is like 1400. The reason for me is that I only play live when I get back from going out, or am bored in the middle of the night. I'd probably still be lower than 1900 if I seriously tried though, online ratings seem a tad inflated.

I lost an online game against someone rated about 1900, but he has a (stable) blitz rating below 1100. Now that's a difference...

 in online chess, one gets at least a day to analyse the position and find the correct move by his own effort. so, a player can sit and analyse his games easily.

in blitz, players usually have to rely on their memory about a position,  their "gut feelings" and time management skills

now, not all the players have both these skills  developed properly or at a same level .some players have good memory or time management which helps them to win blitz games. 

also, by differences, it means a huge difference for example someone having his blitz rating below 1000 but online rating is 2000+

in your case, the difference between online and blitz rating shows that you are slow in chess.(no offense )

I wasn't talking about myself, so you didn't offend me . My own rating difference between online and live chess is only about 20 points right now.

well, i was talking about the person who started this forum topic about huge differences. 

I think its fairly obvious that if you are moving with time pressure, your likely to make more mistakes. 

Though I think live chess games are fairer games, as you both have the same time to spend on moves, and its more difficult to use extra assistance that people use for online games...such as Game Explorer, databases, whatever.

it may be understandable the difference between blitz and online chess. I know a layer who plays live standard matches, with 45/45 or higher tie controls. His live rating is in 1300s and online chess rating is in 1900s. This IS the difference.

In the 'Players' link you can look at the distribution of players rating and also the averages. You can see that in correspondence chess the average rating is 1357, while in 'Sudden Death' it is only 1135. So it must be a common phenomenon among players to have lower live rating than correspondence. Also apparent that much less players play correspondence than live.

But still it is a mistery for me how can the average be higher (since my simple mind thinks that the ELO points the one player loses, the other wins - therefore the average should stay around 1200). May be some expert in the ELO system can provide an explanation.

I dislike games where the game is more about time than about mating. I have played a lot of games here in short time controls where i am in a completely won situation, but i cannot finish the thing off. A game under 15 minutes is for me not real chess. I enjoy it, but it is like fast food..

I'm 66 and my correspondence rating on all venues is much higher than my otb rating or my live rating. PS - I don't cheat!

I don't believe anyone w/ a blitz rating of 1100 can beat a FM without cheating. 

I have a large disparity in rating, but percentile wise its not that different. In addition, it is considered OK in correspondence chess to reference opening books and GM games, so I think a lot of people do that which keeps them out of too much early touble, leading to higher baseline ratings. In my experience, though everyone whom I have played in online chess that is above 2000 has then had thier account shut off.

Also, if your tactics score or chess mentor scores can't match your online score your probably cheating IMO. 

A lot guys when they play on line they have their lap top next to them couching them, and this is why their "on line" rating is much higher. I like playing 5 minutes time control is fun and quick. If you get nervous playing fast then choose a time control that you qre confortable with.

Watcha makes a good point. I believe that elo points around the world are quite different because the communities have different strengths. A 1500 elo fide otb in uk is not of the same strength as in germany.. There is just not enough contact between the two communities to iron out differences. In theory, if there was no cheating, an internet score is more globally representative. Only the very high levels play internationally and those people do not play enough with lower rated players in their country to act as communicating vessels.

@Lou-for-you:

This still does not explain how can in the same pool of players where everybody starts at 1200 and the points one loses the other one wins, the average deviate from 1200 significantly. May be the ELO system is not a zero sum game. I'm really not familiar with the math of it to this depth.

With the RD variable rating points won and lost by the players aren't equal.  The more unreliable a rating (new or inactive) the more points are gained and lost.

e.g. a 1200 player who plays 20 games a day vs a new account.  The account that's active daily will gain (or lose) just a few points while the new account may gain (or lose) 10x the amount (I'm not sure on exact values).

Also people quit... so say you go on a winning streak then delete your account.  You've artificially deflated the average rating by taking points out of the system.  Same with casual player who make an account, lose a few games, and quit.