Incredible Blitz vs Online Rating Disparity

I just started playing online chess here and so far I won my first 4 games on time.  The longest game went 14 moves.  

I started studying chess when I was older and I tend to do better in slower time controls as well.  I think the online chess pool is slightly weaker but also it suits me better.  

I am actually quite amazed when players can't seem to play better chess when they have time to move the pieces and analyze each position without a time constraint. But it seems pretty clear to me that several players really can't do more indepth analysis even if given more time.   

As far as my otb chess I think that improved quite a bit due to my online chess and to some extent from blitz too. In the online chess I am less likely to make a tactical blunder (although it still happens!) and so its more based on my positional understanding.  

I think my endgame play has improved the most from turn based chess.   

I think playing all types of chess are good.  I doubt I could even play a 1 minute sudden death game though. 

Don't underestimate the number of games that end with the "loser" of the game (on time) enjoying a position showing him checkmate and the victory, but recorded as a loss on time with the archived result showing a mate in 1 with the loser to move but time expired.

If you have noob internet, you shouldn't play bullet.  Premoves have to be reasonable when the opponent has 3 or more seconds left on the clock in the endgame.  As for mouseclicking, if you are slow you shouldn't play bullet.  Most people can click reasonably fast though.  I am reasonably fast and I even drag my pieces instead of clicking.  The best bullet chess players in the world show that there is a high degree of skill involved.

When I win bullet games, mating is one way to go about it, but a lot of times you can just achieve a dominant position and then just play very safe premoves or check spams.  If I have a big advantage positionally in bullet and have plenty of time left, I get a lot of resignations from opponents.  If they don't resign, it's an easy win anyways.

If people rely on winning on time alone (not taking into account slow people with dial-up internet who need to stop playing bullet), they either have a dominant position which makes it easier for them to make quick moves or are very good at defending (with maybe a few Simple Jack spam moves at the very end).  

@TitanCG

I argue that ANY time control is not chess because it is a Johnny-come-lately addition to real chess. I don't know when they pulled out the first hourglass or sundial to time the game, but time control wasn't very common until quite recently.

I also don't impune the quality of any game of the chess family. I only offer that they exercise different skills. One could say that standard chess is a test of organized logic, where as bullet tests reflexes, intuition and technique. One tests deep reasoning, the other, thinking on your feet. Both skills are invaluable to anyone who considers themselves "smart."

Hmmmmm.  Ok, maybe I should come out of retirement on Bullet.  Heck, there's even 30 second chess called Lightning on ChessCube, I believe.  I bet those Lightning players can move some pieces around!

Haha.  When the buttons on the chess clock start getting smashed, you know its time to go to a slower time control.

If you play bullet offline, you need an old set, ideally heavily weighted, and an old clock.

Sweet.

Okay. I've downloaded your games for analysis. A quick glance at your rating, however, suggests that if you cheat, you're not very good at it. 

Hopefully Quinns will come up clean on the chess.com urinalysis. 

Haha

Well once, ages ago on gmeknot it happened to me to come across position from bayonette KID which accidentialy coresponded with played game. Idea was so beautiful that I have used it, and it worked as charm... to keep honest with myself I have blundered couple of moves later and waved victory goodbye. 

Moral, be carefull what you eat to not contaminate piss. 

Actually that tells what correspondence is about, and most blitz players don't seem to understand. It's not necessarily 30 minutes each move of course, but serious effort when the position requires it. I think most fast players are to lazy to put serious effort in slow games, or just aren't able to concentrate well without time pressure.

Also high rated blitz players clearly have little to do in life, that's why they are rarely distracted during their blitz games.

So if you're bad at blitz but good at longer time controls you are a cheater?

Not necessarily, but their opponents possible cheating is what terrible correspondence players use to explain their own bad performance, and often use as an excuse to not tackle their bad playing habits.

all i know is that i am super good

Yeah, me too! I recently went from 1974 to 2042 online, even without actually winning any real games!

Example of ratings of an honest player

? ;-)

I typically have a minimum of 600+ gap between my blitz and correspondence ratings when they are stabilised. This happens in online problem solving too. In chesstempo, where they have standard and blitz solving modes, I have a 500+ point rating gap. And eventhough it's just "my word," I have never cheated.

It happens. I had been watching IM Greg Shahade's 5-min blitz videos for a while (they're great, by the way) and yesterday I decided to take up on blitz again after a big hiatus. I lost all 3 games and I think dropped around 150+ points in about half an hour. I stopped playing on with the realisation of the bitter fact that there's no way I can play a reasonable game at a "crazy" time control like 5 minutes. And in 10 minutes, I have to get very lucky to make decent looking moves that don't hang pieces on the spot. In slow games though, (and in online chess here if I don't "blitz" the moves) I can often analize deeply and accurately, and give expert level players a somewhat decent challenge.