I've done a bit of research on this topic, and it's just like bongcloudftw says at comment #20. Live ratings are deflated, while online ratings are inflated.
It's quite typical for a player to have an online rating about 200-300 points higher than her live rating, and even greater margins are not surprising - although I think that even in this case, a difference of 500-600 points may indicate someone who uses the assistance of engines.
I can't help but be incredibly taken-aback by all the conspiracy talk. I'm trying hard to not step all over anyone's toes, because i believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's not like i accept an Online challenge without these thoughts either, but then, i give my opponent the benefit of the doubt (and i hope it:s likewise too) regardless whether i win or lose. If he's "using" in either situations, it's on him. My time on Chess.com is precious. I will survive. (which is probably i'll only play people -100 or +100 differential from my Online chess rating)
(The exceptions, of course, are if they're longtime sparring buddies, team matches and tournament pairings)
French defense is good for 5' blitz but not so good on online. I have played it over and over and white has difficulties in breaking it and evetually settles for draw or lost.
I hate playing white against the French. I usually exchange pawns early to open up the position a bit. Don't like the Caro-Kann either. Swashing and Buckling is so much more fun.
What are these "unwritten rules?"
Yeah, and where the heck are they written down??
My point is that you can't argue that blitz is not chess with something that is simply subjective. If tacit agreements exist they only do so between masters and even then they are only rules of etiquette. Motivations cannot be argued for as you can't possibly know everyone's. I'm simply asking for an objective answer if there even is one...
Comparison shows how they are alike.
Contrast shows how they are different.
Saying blitz and bullet aren't chess is absurd. I am certain that anyone who randomly moves pieces as fast as they can will have their ass handed to them by a bullet player above 1450. Just because one is not calculating 5 moves deep every move doesn't mean it's not chess. Are there more blunders and hanging pieces in fast chess? Of course. That the fun of it.
As to why ratings differ so much just look at the analysis button. If you can pick up the pieces and move them around all day you're going to make better moves than if you don't. No need to even cheat with an engine (players that do that are just kidding themselves). Although I would say that using the analysis button disqualifies "online" chess from being an accurate measure of ones ability because you can't do that in an otb or blitz/bullet game. Sorry all you guys out there that have 2250 online and 1350 blitz. You're not as good as you think you are.
Such disparities raise questions, and even suspicions. Sometimes the difference reflects very few games in one of the categories, although I cannot comprehend how anyone could ever be under 1200 in any category and over 2000 in Online.
The best that you can do is run some tests on a database of the player's games, and if these tests confirm or increase suspicions, it is time to file an abuse report.
I've seen folks banned less than 24 hours after submitting a report. But, Chess.com does not always find my suspicions warranted.
Suppose someone has over 400 points difference between online and live ratings?
Whats the point? its an artificial rating.
I'm pretty sure that's my current gap. If not, it was last week. My Online rating has been climbing slowly the past few months (but the RD is near 100). My blitz has wild fluctuations of 200 points (the RD is near 30).
I'm consistently in the top 5% on the site in blitz, and in the top 2% in Online. Currently in Online, I've climbed into the top 0.05%. A few wins will do that.
Like cheapendgametricks, my reaction time has slowed due to age. It took me a week of pain to get my bullet over 1600, an then I quit.
OTB chess is the only accurate measure of chess ability. OTB Players usually spend lots of time in opening 10 moves.
Online chess is for training and fun purposes. Blitz and bullets are not much different. But B&B are more difficult than O. Because O allowed certain things that can't be done in the former ones.
OTB chess is the only accurate measure of chess ability. OTB Players usually spend lots of time in opening 10 moves.
Online chess is for training and fun purposes. Blitz and bullets are not much different. But B&B are more difficult than O. Because O allowed certain things that can't be done in the former ones.
Against one opponent OTB whose rating is near mine, if he has White, we begin (using less than thirty seconds each):
Then, he goes into a long think. Sometimes, he will fire off 8.Nf3, to which I instantly respond 8...c5, then his think begins.
OTB chess is the only accurate measure of chess ability. OTB Players usually spend lots of time in opening 10 moves.
Online chess is for training and fun purposes. Blitz and bullets are not much different. But B&B are more difficult than O. Because O allowed certain things that can't be done in the former ones.
Against one opponent OTB whose rating is near mine, if he has White, we begin (using less than thirty seconds each):
Then, he goes into a long think. Sometimes, he will fire off 8.Nf3, to which I instantly respond 8...c5, then his think begins.
Interesting position. 8. Qg4 or Qh5 are possible. They need lots of thinking.
Well the average difference of between the rating pools is about 250.
If the player has little opening knowledge but uses opening explorer, that could add another 200.
I’d say throw in 300 if the player makes extensive use of the analysis board.
Another 250 could be due to age/recently learned concepts/clock panic/randomness
I really don’t think it’s that mysterious. I aced my calculus classes in college, yet I’m sure there are people who never took calculus but can multiply large numbers in their head much quicker than I can.
OTB chess is the only accurate measure of chess ability. OTB Players usually spend lots of time in opening 10 moves.
Online chess is for training and fun purposes. Blitz and bullets are not much different. But B&B are more difficult than O. Because O allowed certain things that can't be done in the former ones.
Against one opponent OTB whose rating is near mine, if he has White, we begin (using less than thirty seconds each):
Then, he goes into a long think. Sometimes, he will fire off 8.Nf3, to which I instantly respond 8...c5, then his think begins.
Interesting position. 8. Qg4 or Qh5 are possible. They need lots of thinking.
I don't think that he's ever played either of those moves, at least not against me. Here's one of our games. I offered a draw after my move 45. He turned it down and then blundered. He had less than five minutes on the clock. I had about twelve.
8.Bd3 is an error. 11...Qxd2 was a cowardly effort to play for a draw. 11...Qxg2 and Black has the advantage.
Haha. Bullet is just mouse clicking, Brenee! You know that! :)
Bullet isn't quite just mouse clicking. The best bullet players, such as Nakamura would destroy an average chess player in bullet virtually every time. If a player has an excellent bullet rating, he will have strong chess fundamentals. Titled chess players can't input their moves much faster than the average chess player, if at all.
I like bullet a lot because you can finish a game very quickly, it is a good test of your chess intuition and ability to quickly size up a situation, and the time play offers an interesting meta-game.
But on topic, yeah I think if someone has an incredible online chess rating but a very poor blitz rating, that is a big red flag. Maybe a strong chess player can't move fast enough for bullet, but there is no reason a person strong in online chess should have a very weak blitz rating
But on topic, yeah I think if someone has an incredible online chess rating but a very poor blitz rating, that is a big red flag. Maybe a strong chess player can't move fast enough for bullet, but there is no reason a person strong in online chess should have a very weak blitz rating
There are way too many variables to make any general conclusion. A "red flag" perhaps, but nothing definitive. You are making a lot of assumptions - mostly why, how, and under what conditions the player plays Blitz.
That's true. Such disparities raise suspicions, but are not in themselves evidence. The terms "strong" and "weak" are at least partly subjective.
If I play Blitz as a video game, make mostly quick moves by instinct or habit, see some tactic that looks interesting so I just try it without much look-ahead, give little thought to the opening except to get pieces developed, and perhaps have a few adult beverages in me, my Blitz rating will be way lower than my online rating, as it is. Playing 3 day/move CC games, none of the above is true.
I play that way, too, albeit not consistently. Even so, with that manner of play I cannot reliably drop my blitz below 1400. Maybe if I imbibed deeper in adult beverages, I could do better at sandbagging. But, I've defeated 1600s laying in bed, playing on the iPad, and falling asleep while waiting for my opponent to move.
Haha. Bullet is just mouse clicking, Brenee! You know that! :)
Bullet isn't quite just mouse clicking. The best bullet players, such as Nakamura would destroy an average chess player in bullet virtually every time. If a player has an excellent bullet rating, he will have strong chess fundamentals. Titled chess players can't input their moves much faster than the average chess player, if at all.
I like bullet a lot because you can finish a game very quickly, it is a good test of your chess intuition and ability to quickly size up a situation, and the time play offers an interesting meta-game.
My statement was somewhat 'tongue in cheek', but, realistically speaking, Bullet has a large chunk of its effectiveness on mouse clicking, premove ( as James said ) and connectivity speeds, and much less on talent. I'm not referring to the best chess players in the world, ie Nakamura.
I've played Bullet in the past, where people just make sub par moves consistently but LIGHTNING QUICK. I end up nearly mating them in 60 seconds but lose on time. To expect to mate solid players ( not great players ) in 60 seconds every time is probably more than you should expect from Tarkanian.
You can beat people purely by time in Blitz, too. HOWEVER, in Blitz, ie 3min or 5min, you CAN play very good moves from both sides and get mates or resigns. How many resigns have you EVER HEARD OF in Bullet? NEXT TO NONE, because people mainly rely on fast mouse clicking and winning on time alone. Not every game, but the bulk of them.
(Or even more than likely, chatting with all of you folks why i can't reply rightaway...heh...go figger)
8)