I find my live blitz and long ratings are not too different from my OTB.
Turn-based depends how serious you take it - I'm low enough because I spent about a minute per move and sometimes have 50 games on the go.
Bullet is inflated here as well for some reason. But non-bullet live chess seems to be strikingly similar, and I know a few others who play in 'real-life' and have similar OTB classical ratings to their blitz ratings here.
It's like using your G/15 rating to estimate your blitz rating if you've never played blitz. Given a large amount of users you could extrapolate probably a really close guess. But if you've never played in an OTB tournament your rating is going to suffer at first as you get used to it's unique aspects in the same way if you've never played blitz you're going to have to spend some games getting used to it.
I mean, to answer the thread's title, it's obvious that there's a difference.
The relations between Otb and online is clear. The average inflation for most players are at most 200 rating.
It's like using your G/15 rating to estimate your blitz rating if you've never played blitz. Given a large amount of users you could extrapolate probably a really close guess. But if you've never played in an OTB tournament your rating is going to suffer at first as you get used to it's unique aspects in the same way if you've never played blitz you're going to have to spend some games getting used to it.
I mean, to answer the thread's title, it's obvious that there's a difference.
I agree that there's a difference, now I am discussing by how much. Changing suddenly from blitz habits to Standard/tournament needs adjustment. I am still unrated(FIDE) though I have beaten Fide players around 2000-2100 in tournaments 2hrs and comparing my rating here and fics its preety accurate for me.
Well, several months later, my correspondence rating is hovering around 2300 as I had hoped, but my blitz rating hasn't broken 2000 yet. I've been frustrated by the lag, but that's just an excuse. I still expected to break 2000 and haven't been able to do that yet.
That's about what I would have expected, your blitz rating to be about the same as your OTB or a little lower and the turn-based rating to be about 300 points higher. (Considering that you have experience in correspondence play, eg I never played a correspondence game before I joined this site and I don't really enjoy it much so that it's not much higher than my blitz.)
i find online harder because the screen hurts my eyes. im estimated at 1900-2000
OTB
My eyesight is not great either.
One is real chess and the other is fantasy chess--anyone who brags about an on-line rating is not a real chess player.
+1
I said it before and will say again, this is nonsense. Chess is an abstract game whether you play it in "OTB" or over the Internet. Bishops are not real bishops when you play in OTB, Knights are not real knights, the Queen is not a real queen, the King is not a real king etc. Chess is in any form a metaphorical representation of reality at best, or an escape from it at worst. It's not like you are dealing with any of the world's real problems by playing in "OTB." The notion that OTB chess is somehow more "real" is completely nebulous.
... im estimated at 1900-2000
OTB
By whom???
"My mom says I'm cool."
Oh don't we just looooove to jump on rating estimates
hm.. try to look at the quality instead, if you beat a 2200 player in a 10-0 online game, go trough the game, why did you win?
-The best thing you could do is to actually play OTB, you'll find out quick if you are a good player.
-If you dont feel like it, try a book like: Chess Exam Igor Khmelnitsky.
my fide is 1803 and my test rating was between 1800-1900.
The difference is that online ratings are meaningless while OTB ratings aren't. I feel much the same about CC/Postal ratings as well........ at least post strong engine era...
FIDE DOES rate some correspondance chess matches.
One is real chess and the other is fantasy chess--anyone who brags about an on-line rating is not a real chess player.
I disagree. Some people do not get the chance to play OTB rated games, OTB tournaments or OTB chess clubs, so they solely depend upon online chess to continue playing chess at all. Who is to say that they would lose to an OTB player if they had the chance to play?
One is real chess and the other is fantasy chess--anyone who brags about an on-line rating is not a real chess player.
+1
I said it before and will say again, this is nonsense. Chess is an abstract game whether you play it in "OTB" or over the Internet. Bishops are not real bishops when you play in OTB, Knights are not real knights, the Queen is not a real queen, the King is not a real king etc. Chess is in any form a metaphorical representation of reality at best, or an escape from it at worst. It's not like you are dealing with any of the world's real problems by playing in "OTB." The notion that OTB chess is somehow more "real" is completely nebulous.
What's the last time you played someone who was roughly as good as you in person over a real board?
It's not a question of 3d solid pieces vs 2d digital pieces. If a person only ever played online, sure it's still chess, and yes that person could potentially get really good (better than me anyway).
The primary problem is the level of play you're sharpening yourself against when online. Most online sites are full of 1) New players 2) casual players 3) serious players who aren't playing seriously. For example I like to play a few blitz games (or bullet, depending on how tired I am) before I go to bed. Sometimes these games are awful :) I know some people (who are braver than me) play right after getting up before heading to work (I'd do even worse in the morning).
So even if the person who only plays online is taking their games seriously, on most sites he wont be able to find an opponent who is doing the same.
I realize not everyone has tournaments organized near them -- or has the time/money to travel out to a tourney, but most of the players you find there are going to be serious because... they spent time and money to be there. There's no getting around the fact that at a tournament the level of play is going to be better overall. Even in the same individual... e.g. Frank plays some online games and then 7 days later goes to a tourney... you can bet Frank is attempting to play at 100% in the tourney -- and it's very unlikely that he's going to put forth so much effort online.
This and because some people are suspicious of online cheating are the primary (at least to me) reasons that an OTB rating is seen as more valuable... even though I think (in live games anyway) there is very little cheating going on... and when it happens to you it's usually easy to tell so just don't re-match them and move on.
Oh, and sometimes I play blitz on my phone on FICS heh. At least the way I'm doing it there is no time stamp for sure, and depending on my connection I can have a pretty miserable run 
Internet chess is fun and can be useful but rating comparisons to OTB do not work. People are hung up on ratings instead of enjoying playing which is what sites like this provide
Also as Orangehonda points out people take Internet chess at different levels of seriousness yet most OTB players take every game seriously. Also the fatigue and pressure factor add it. And as mentioned G10 vs 40/2 is a much different endurance test.
Also I am quite sure FIDE does not rate cc chess (ICCF is the main organization) and not sure Windows-7_ got that fact. So that comparison goes out as well.
The difference is that online ratings are meaningless while OTB ratings aren't. I feel much the same about CC/Postal ratings as well........ at least post strong engine era...
Not all use engines, the majority of the players play fair and square. Though officially recognized organisation like fide, uscf didn't give online ratings but still its good to determine one's strength where we stand etc.
The USCF has online ratings through the electronic knight tourneys,swift quads,victor palciauskas prize tourneys and more.Incase people did not know this.
One is real chess and the other is fantasy chess--anyone who brags about an on-line rating is not a real chess player.
+1
I said it before and will say again, this is nonsense. Chess is an abstract game whether you play it in "OTB" or over the Internet. Bishops are not real bishops when you play in OTB, Knights are not real knights, the Queen is not a real queen, the King is not a real king etc. Chess is in any form a metaphorical representation of reality at best, or an escape from it at worst. It's not like you are dealing with any of the world's real problems by playing in "OTB." The notion that OTB chess is somehow more "real" is completely nebulous.
What's the last time you played someone who was roughly as good as you in person over a real board?
It's not a question of 3d solid pieces vs 2d digital pieces. If a person only ever played online, sure it's still chess, and yes that person could potentially get really good (better than me anyway).
The primary problem is the level of play you're sharpening yourself against when online. Most online sites are full of 1) New players 2) casual players 3) serious players who aren't playing seriously. For example I like to play a few blitz games (or bullet, depending on how tired I am) before I go to bed. Sometimes these games are awful :) I know some people (who are braver than me) play right after getting up before heading to work (I'd do even worse in the morning).
So even if the person who only plays online is taking their games seriously, on most sites he wont be able to find an opponent who is doing the same.
I realize not everyone has tournaments organized near them -- or has the time/money to travel out to a tourney, but most of the players you find there are going to be serious because... they spent time and money to be there. There's no getting around the fact that at a tournament the level of play is going to be better overall. Even in the same individual... e.g. Frank plays some online games and then 7 days later goes to a tourney... you can bet Frank is attempting to play at 100% in the tourney -- and it's very unlikely that he's going to put forth so much effort online.
This and because some people are suspicious of online cheating are the primary (at least to me) reasons that an OTB rating is seen as more valuable... even though I think (in live games anyway) there is very little cheating going on... and when it happens to you it's usually easy to tell so just don't re-match them and move on.
I used to play fairly regularly in OTB and we actually have a pretty strong local club with several FMs but now I don't bother to go to the club any more and haven't gone in years. It's just easier to log on the Internet and easier to find opponents. Okay, it is possible to complain about the quality of Internet play - lag is a problem in fast games, there is occasional cheating etc. but that doesn't make it not real or less real. Is it your impression though that most of your online opponents are not taking the game seriously ? Mine seem to be taking it pretty seriously, judging by the fact that they often play on in hopeless positions hoping to win on time etc.
My thoughts on it.
In my own experience and I strongly believe that it is the same with the majority of other players that there is not much inflation comparing online ratings and otb provided players play the game fair and square.
Because they're different pools of players, the ratings aren't the same everywhere. ICC and maybe also FICS have a rating survey you can add too by submitting your online and OTB ratings. It's not letting me view it right now, but I think 80% or so of players are within 200 points (some higher, some lower, and as much as 20% not even within 200 points).
For example, here, the top of the blitz rating pool will be 2200-2300, the top of ICC is 3000+ Yahoo! maybe 2100-2200, etc. Of course this isn't only at the top, but speaks of the players in the middle too that their ratings can't be 1:1 with other sites (although as you say the extremes are always less accurate).
I also compare my play against fide rated players who are 2000-2100 and the strength is more or less equal.
But their FIDE rating is for long time controls against serious players... hard to compare to throw away blitz games. You see yourself that your rating can vary depending on the time control (as it is for most people). I know for myself I play more attacking and gambit type games in online blitz that I'd never go for at a tournament. It's hard to believe you can compare your blitz play to someone and then believe it will hold true also for tournament standards.
2. Players who can play 2000 in blitz is sure to play better with more time like otb.
This makes it sound like you've never played in an OTB tournament. Long time controls are very different. If you're mind is used to blitz, your thinking can be too fast and unstructured for long time controls... the point in standard games is accuracy and doesn't have much to do with speed. Strong blitz play doesn't have much to do with a strong long time control game.
Also because the games are so much longer, you can fool yourself and over think, or get tired and actually make blunders you would never make in blitz. I've been there (and seen others do this) so I know.
After playing both format ie. OTB and Online that's my assumption. It actually happens in my own game.