@waffllemaster:
So it is not mainly the ELO system, but the nature of correspondence chess, in which you are more likely to create many games then simply abandon them, if I understand you well. ( btw. What is your explanation for the live average being below 1200? )
Another factor may also be internet connection, I lose many games especially 1 minute games simply because my connection often is slow.
agreed. I play late at night, cram in games at work (when i shouldnt be) and generally play blitz in all sorts of rush scenarios. I have yet to complete online games w/ this new name but i was ~1500 on another username. I think it's just how it goes with blitz. A 1500 blitz is VERY Good vs a lot of 1500s online I can play with.
hello friends since some time my rating does not increase nor it diminishes when I lose a game, what is wrong?
thank everybody
When I see a clock, my brain turns to mush.
I think plenty of others think slower or dont handle pressure well. So there is bound to be a difference.
There are different skills required to be good at different time controls. With online chess, if one has the patience and ability, one can spend hours calculating and contemplating a single move. Of course, not everyone has the time to do that. I find that my quality of play goes way up when I am only playing 2-3 online games and set aside 30-60 minutes (scheduled) without interruption during a quiet time of day. In those situations, I will spend the time to calculate 5-10 moves in each line to determine what the optimal play is. If I am playing too many games or if I am in a rush (e.g., because I have to make dinner or drive the kids somewhere in10 minutes)' I tend to spend only 30-60 seconds on a move, which makes it more likely I make a mistake.
For shorter time controls, I don't have the luxury of 60 seconds per move, much less 30 minutes per move. At very short time controls (10 minutes or less), mouse speed becomes a factor. I literally am unable to move in under 2-3 seconds even if I move randomly without thinking. My average when trying to move fast is 5-10 seconds per move, which results in me losing on time even when I am up in material. I really don't understand how people are so quick. You have to click the piece, then you have to click the square you want to move to and then you have to click submit. If I click too fast, I often click on the wrong square and move somewhere I don't want to go.
I play very few live games because of the clock and also because of the problems with disconnections. Live games though are intense and fun, but only when I can forget there's a clock and concentrate on my moves.
Indeed. On another site, players were given between 1 min-2 min (depending on your settings) a move w/no increments, and i really enjoyed playing in that kind of format. Although, when you accepted an challenge from someone with a 2 min setting, it was kind of understood he may be using other resources beyond their own capabilities. Heh.
Hmm, maybe with the RD, the order of the players entering the pool may have an affect on where the average will be? Say for 1 month a pool of players goes from 0 to 1000. All players start at an average rating of 1200 and, for convenience, the average national rating of these players happens to be 1200.
Then the next month 200 new players join who have a national rating average of 1800 points. As they win, the RD ensures they gain more points than are taken away from the established players, so the average rating will rise.
Now imagine the reverse. The 1800 average players are set at a 1200 average and when novice players join the average points per player will drop and so will the average rating.
-----------
So maybe we can assume online (online-correspondence) chess has always drawn newer players who are uncomfortable with "clock" games. While it's fairly understood that blitz is a favorite of more experienced players. As the novice players build skill and confidence, they branch out into blitz games, and due to them being below average the average rating for live games drops.
Yes, i'm one of those few who have since stopped playing live games because of bad connection. I used to play 15/10 games using the browser site, but i started "losing" won positions simply because of disconnection. So when i got the app, i thought problem solved. It wasn't.
@waffllemaster:
With all due respect to your explanation I have to point to the fact that there are much fewer correspondence players then live. So it can not be the pattern that players start with correspondence and then switch to blitz. I also don't think that the strength of players joining the site varies in such a dramatic way which can explain the difference.
On the other hand it is possible to argue that in blitz where speed matters you have to get used to the particularity of the application, so provisional players may underperform their true strength simply because they are unfamiliar with the playing conditions. May be this explanation is too artificial but there has to be some simple consistent reason.
Blitz game is different from standard chess. I remember a guy dominated me completely in 5 min OTB blitz. But in 30 min OTB chess, he could hardly got a draw.
That was because I wasn't used to 5' game.
In online chess, my French defense is easily overcome.
In blitz, I have defeated several players with 1600+ using French Defense.
That's because players are not used to French Defense in blitz.
Besides the advantages already commented on, online games are really more convenient for me. When drinking with guys, i can just quickly analyze (whether it's a "good" assessment or not due to intoxication is debatable!) and submit an reply whenever. Unlike live games (besides-ugh-disconnection)
@waffllemaster:
With all due respect to your explanation I have to point to the fact that there are much fewer correspondence players then live. So it can not be the pattern that players start with correspondence and then switch to blitz. I also don't think that the strength of players joining the site varies in such a dramatic way which can explain the difference.
On the other hand it is possible to argue that in blitz where speed matters you have to get used to the particularity of the application, so provisional players may underperform their true strength simply because they are unfamiliar with the playing conditions. May be this explanation is too artificial but there has to be some simple consistent reason.
Hmm, maybe I assumed too much with the cross over idea. For my idea to be correct though it only requires that among all the new players to live chess there are more whose strength is under the average than over the average. And similarly among the new players to online-correspondence chess there are more over the average than under. It doesn't really matter where they come from (from chess.com or other sites).
Or I guess all we need to be able to say is that online-correspondence chess was first established with a large group of novice players during... lets say the first year... or at least this player base was weaker than those who first played the live games. I don't know the history of chess.com very well... maybe live games didn't come until later and corresponded with advertising strong players were aware of. Maybe online chess was populated with many casual player from facebook?
----------------------------
The idea that the speed (or maybe even other particulars) of chess.com live chess take getting used to is good too. Even though I'd played online blitz for years when I came to chess.com I had to get used to the way they dealt with lag. I wasn't used to as much time stamp correction and I was often misreading the clocks and playing too slow.
It seems quite common for people to have a much higher online chess rating vs. bullet and/or blitz. All that really says to me is the online rating is a more accurate descriptin of how well a player understands chess.
Chess.com does not use the Elo rating system. Chess.com uses the Glicko rating system. The Glicko rating system does not conserve points (conserve means player A gains x points, player B loses x points). Deflation is common in Glicko rating systems (more points are lost than won because players with more established ratings win more often) so the more samples (game results) the more the ratings in a system deflate. This is the simple explanation for why correspondence ratings are higher than live ratings (correspondence has fewer total games played, so fewer samples for the deflation to occur).
trying to finish a game before the missus comes back from the bathroom during a dinner out, brings dire consequences-either being in the doghouse or losing the game on time anyway while trying to explain why i can't be left alone for 2 secs ("come'on, honey it was more like 300 secs..") without being caught playing chess on my phone. Heh. Anyways, that's my reason for the disparity in ratings.
Burt looks like he's high on acid in that picture :)
trying to finish a game before the missus comes back from the bathroom during a dinner out, brings dire consequences-either being in the doghouse or losing the game on time anyway while trying to explain why i can't be left alone for 2 secs ("come'on, honey it was more like 300 secs..") without being caught playing chess on my phone. Heh. Anyways, that's my reason for the disparity in ratings.
OMG. That's it. I literally have had the phone thrown out the window. I deserved it.
.