The other thing to bear in mind is that different people will be have different strengths in different formats of the game: I'm better at long game and poor in blitz, but there are other i know who are the reverse.
Its all relative
Online v. LIve Average Rating Difference
Sort:
Yup, I often play live when I watch television so it is not representative of my best effort either. Still, I have noticed a lot of individuals who have lower live than online. I am curious because I would like to get an idea of how my rating(s) suggest what my FIDE rating might be. I suspect that my true FIDE over the board rating would be closer to my lower live rating than my higher online rating.
It does not really matter. Watching it go up is motivating regardless of how it compares to a true rating. Just curious.
live chess is more fun I enjoy the time presssure, online chess bores me
I play both and I like both. Live is more exciting and dramatic and I feel my live results are a better reflection of my true abilities. My online rating is much higher. I believe this is in part because the average rating in the online group is higher and that feeds on itself, but it is also because I spend a lot of time on each move, perhaps more than the average person. This allows me to play at a higher level and begin to understand the game at a higher level.
I believe that playing both together help progress level of play. I believe that playing either exclusively misses opportunities to learn.
I started a thread recently with 25 posts on it that may be of interest on a related subject to this one--dealing with which of the two types of play ultimately help one become a better over the board player. I think the consensus was that deep analysis (which I do in online) does help you in the long run. But I also notice that almost all of the tactics trainers, including the one on this site, require quick play. So I think that a combination of both is the best way to improve, and am following that plan. I have played only a few live games and always end up in time trouble, so I need to start working with that as well.
Regards,
Russ
Though, as it seems for everyone here, my online rating is higher than my live rating, it is a clear correlation between the numbers. Throughout my time here I have come across opponents whom have a rating difference in the area of a 1000 with a substancial number of games played both online and live. This always seemed a bit strange to me. Not strange enough to really care, but enough to enter this thread when I saw it. Should I interpret it as you all finding these types of rating differences completly natural?
My experience is just the opposite, my live rating is higher than my internet rating. When playing online, I may be distracted by the television, dog, or any number of individuals trying to carry on a conversation. Plus, most people prefer short games online.
I have observed that better players seem to have higher live ratings than online ratings. I suspect that it depends on how you play. lately I have been playing live games while watching TV and my live rating has gone down a lot. But I have been focusing more on my online games and my rating there is near my all time high.
On chess.com, the average online rating is 1384 while the average live rating is in the 1100s. Until recently, I had assumed that this difference was due to the fact that lesser players such as myself can boost their play with exceptionally careful study of each move, sometime aided by the analysis board while there is no time for that in live chess. My rating is higher for online than for live and I have observed the majority of my opponents have higher online ratings that live ratings.
In another thread, another member suggested an alternative cause. His theory is that there is much more transient play in live chess. People who sign up, play a few games, lose and leave with a very low rating which brings the average down.
Anybody have any opinions? Anybody care? Would anybody be interested in ratings statistics for only premium members or only for members who have a Glicko score below a certain level or who have played a minimum number of games?
Not that the rating really matters, but it is an interesting benchmark against which to monitor progress.