Maybe, but perhaps not.
I have heard that the general standard of play in live is much stronger than correspondence. For that reason, people generally have lower live ratings. Of course, a 1000 difference seems a little strong, but who knows? He may spend a lot of time on correspondence moves.
If there's a guy with a 1000 rating over many games in blitz I'd tend to say he doesn't know all that much about chess--so I'd wonder where he found the knowledge for the 2000 rating.
Nah its not normal..
1000s (no offense to any1, just trying to make a point) barely have no opening knowledge, sucks at tactical games and probably fail at endgames. While 2000 in correspondence chess have all those.. (its maybe possible if they spend 10 days thinking about the bestm ove but i doubt it)
Has he played live games recently? The rating could have been acquired years ago, and then he might have decided to stop playing blitz, as he was obviously not much good at it.
If the games are recent, it's strange, but this really isn't the place. Contacting support would probably be a better idea.
Completely possible that one freezes up or chronically blunders during live chess- It would be really strange if it was the other way around! Low correspondence vs high live...
Has he played live games recently? The rating could have been acquired years ago, and then he might have decided to stop playing blitz, as he was obviously not much good at it.
If the games are recent, it's strange, but this really isn't the place. Contacting support would probably be a better idea.
Latest live games were played at the end of June, 2010.
His stats are: approximate rating
Correspondence: 2050
and
Live: Standard: - 980, Nine Hundred Eighty
Live: Blitz - 910, Nine Hundred Ten
Has never had a rating over 1200, the initial starting rating.
Has never beaten an opponent over 1100.
Average opponent ratings: under 900
Has he played live games recently? The rating could have been acquired years ago, and then he might have decided to stop playing blitz, as he was obviously not much good at it.
If the games are recent, it's strange, but this really isn't the place. Contacting support would probably be a better idea.
Latest live games were played at the end of June, 2010.
His stats are: approximate rating
Correspondence: 2050
and
Live: Standard: - 980, Nine Hundred Eighty
Live: Blitz - 910, Nine Hundred Ten
Has never had a rating over 1200, the initial starting rating.
Has never beaten an opponent over 1100.
Average opponent ratings: under 900
Yeah, that's very odd -- maybe there are two people in the household that use the same user name -- one for live games while the other person only plays turn based.
a 1000 live rating may be as high as 1500 or 1600 max for turn-based, but no way 2000. And 1500-1600 only if they don't take their live games seriously and are playing a bit drunk (lol) while their turn based games they take very seriously and spend a long time with 
Quizara, my guess is what the person takes seriously. I will usually take a rating more seriously where I initially start off well, and try to maintain it from there on. While using the other rating to play when I'm much more wasted. One always has to consider when we are either playing tipsy, or drunk; merely buzzed, or annihilated
I'm unsure what "standard" time means, as I do not play Live chess.
However, neither correspondence nor internet chess are the true measure of one's chess ability. Live chess usually means quick, piece trading chess (if time is a factor) and correspondence is the exact opposite. For example, pick a GM (any GM) and they can play tournament time with unrivaled strength. Take that same GM and put them in a 15 minute game and they play like an average duffer like you or me. I've seen it live. I've watched 2500+ chessmasters get brutalized by young kids whose specialty are quick games. Impossible to be elite in both arenas.
So, in answer to the question, no red flags should be risen in this instance.
I dont want to accuse you of anything here (lying or exagerating). but, i must be honest: I find it exceptionally hard to believe that a GM would play like a patzer in faster time controls. A GM would be able to rely on his vast library of positional knowledge stored in his head and thus would often be able to find the right move without even thinking.
and also, if i remember correctly. Fischer proved you can master both arena's: http://www.bobby-fischer.net/bobby_fischer_speed_chess.htm
In anycase, to the question at hand. on other relevant bit of data we need is the no. of games played. if it is only a few games than his rating might not be reflective of his skill. but 1000 live for 2000 corr sounds odd.
It's not normal.
Agreed with Blackadder, a GM in normal tournament play will be a GM at blitz. (Which is why I don't object to the rapid and blitz tiebreakers to the world championship - Armageddon, now that's another story.)
I'm unsure what "standard" time means, as I do not play Live chess.
However, neither correspondence nor internet chess are the true measure of one's chess ability. Live chess usually means quick, piece trading chess (if time is a factor) and correspondence is the exact opposite. For example, pick a GM (any GM) and they can play tournament time with unrivaled strength. Take that same GM and put them in a 15 minute game and they play like an average duffer like you or me. I've seen it live. I've watched 2500+ chessmasters get brutalized by young kids whose specialty are quick games. Impossible to be elite in both arenas.
So, in answer to the question, no red flags should be risen in this instance.
I dont want to accuse you of anything here (lying or exagerating). but, i must be honest: I find it exceptionally hard to believe that a GM would play like a patzer in faster time controls. A GM would be able to rely on his vast library of positional knowledge stored in his head and thus would often be able to find the right move without even thinking.
and also, if i remember correctly. Fischer proved you can master both arena's: http://www.bobby-fischer.net/bobby_fischer_speed_chess.htm
In anycase, to the question at hand. on other relevant bit of data we need is the no. of games played. if it is only a few games than his rating might not be reflective of his skill. but 1000 live for 2000 corr sounds odd.
What do you consider a few and what is enough to determine anything? Is over 100 games enough or is that too few? Because it is over 100 games.
Depends on the player. I prefer correspondence because I get to think on my own time, when I want to, as a result I see more of each game and learn more.
The clock is intrusive, almost offensive to me. I understand players who thrive on this but I feel I am not good enough to compete at a level satisfactory to me.
I make too many mistakes under the clock and find that really frustrating because I know I can play much better.
Sometimes I can't be bothered playing an entire game in one sitting. The better I got at Chess the more thought I put into it and frankly its become a drain on my resources. I love it but that is how I like to play it now. No clocks, no pressure, just Chess. It's better for the ratings if you care about them. I personally don't think they work outside of professional Chess.
I'm unsure what "standard" time means, as I do not play Live chess.
However, neither correspondence nor internet chess are the true measure of one's chess ability. Live chess usually means quick, piece trading chess (if time is a factor) and correspondence is the exact opposite. For example, pick a GM (any GM) and they can play tournament time with unrivaled strength. Take that same GM and put them in a 15 minute game and they play like an average duffer like you or me. I've seen it live. I've watched 2500+ chessmasters get brutalized by young kids whose specialty are quick games. Impossible to be elite in both arenas.
So, in answer to the question, no red flags should be risen in this instance.
I dont want to accuse you of anything here (lying or exagerating). but, i must be honest: I find it exceptionally hard to believe that a GM would play like a patzer in faster time controls. A GM would be able to rely on his vast library of positional knowledge stored in his head and thus would often be able to find the right move without even thinking.
and also, if i remember correctly. Fischer proved you can master both arena's: http://www.bobby-fischer.net/bobby_fischer_speed_chess.htm
In anycase, to the question at hand. on other relevant bit of data we need is the no. of games played. if it is only a few games than his rating might not be reflective of his skill. but 1000 live for 2000 corr sounds odd.
I don't think there's ever been a time where the top speed chess player wasn't also one of the top 10 in classical time controls. GMs play good chess regardless of the time control. Obviously individuals are going to be better at one or the other, but the essence of blitz is relying on known evaluations and pattern recognition for tactics, maneuvers, and otherwise. Areas that GMs are notably much better than the rest of us.
I don't think there's ever been a time where the top speed chess player wasn't also one of the top 10 in classical time controls.
If the TC are fast enough, Nakamura might satisfy those criteria.
I think it depends on what they use each type of game for, or what they doing in each. In live "blitz" chess I too often take time to calculate. I've ended up losing a lot of "won" games on time but thems the breaks. I wanted to solve the position rather than win the game. I also blunder away massive material when I don't use time to calculate or make overly presumptive pre moves. The little analysis board saves me in coorespondence chess here. I think at least among the people I've played in on-line coorespondence chess here, that too many of them treat it like live chess. so it is easy for a player that is patient to rate much higher in on-line chess than live chess. Maybe not a full 1000 points but maybe 600. That is about what my difference is.
Some people have lost quite a few games on disconnections. If they only have a handful of games this could be an answer. The strange thing is, that if you were to cheat at correspodence chess, why only go for 2000?
*also, where has the spell check button gone? Do I have to think now - on my day off too!
I don't think there's ever been a time where the top speed chess player wasn't also one of the top 10 in classical time controls.
If the TC are fast enough, Nakamura might satisfy those crieteria.
Hmm... that's a pretty good point.
Some people have lost quite a few games on disconnections. If they only have a handful of games this could be an answer. The strange thing is, that if you were to cheat at correspodence chess, why only go for 2000?
*also, where has the spell check button gone? Do I have to think now - on my day off too!
Think of it as like spying for the Russians; not everyone can sleep with intelligence directors, so some have to set their cover bar a little lower.
And, my condolences on the thinking, I hope it doesn't last long.
...for someone to have over a 2000 rating in correspondence chess and have approximately 1000 in live chess, standard time?
I understand the rules about using the forums to accuse someone as a cheat but does this much difference in rating signal that it is possible that one is cheating?