OTB chess vs Internet chess

sorry to be pedantic, jempty, but how on earth can an 'oversight' be 'egregious' ??? - the words doesn't mix - an' I has seen plenny of IMs an' GMs do the same OTB - done it meself more than once when it cost me a tourney or two - it a bloody game, an' life's like that

dunno how they uses 'egregious' in Georgia, but in England it means 'outstandingly bad' , vile, or obnoxious if applied to a person - like Winston said - "two peoples separated by a common language"

Shaw was bloody Irish !! as is half of me one of 'em musta 'borrowed' it from the other, cos I just checked me book - I still don't trust this interwebby thing for accurate information - an' it attributes it to the fat man with the cigar

I am just returning to chess after a long absence, and frankly am enjoying the online play and learning experience  at this point in time. I live in a suburb of Atlanta ( Norcross, GA) and there is a pretty large Chess club abut 15 miles from me  that I have read about, but I find the prospect of going there and playing OTB pretty intimidating  at this point in time. Hopefully my playing will improve with practice and I will get to the point where I will be brave enough to try and join a club. I would assume that there are quite a few players on this site  that feel the same way as I do. 

I prefer OTB. The experience is fuller, I feel more intensity and focus on my games. I tend to take the games much more seriously.

I think ichabod is thinking of an instance when a person uses a program to cheat the same way (it makes 100% of the moves) and for every game.  Then that "A" player is just a messenger for the subject that's actually playing, so the rating is accurate in that regard.

But people don't cheat just like that.  I have a friend who doesn't think checking Firtz's evaluation during a CC game (on a different site) is cheating as long as he doesn't look at the suggested moves.  He may not check it at all in some games, or often in others.  When the eval. jumps he can look for a tactic, or knows when to defend, etc.  Other players may just use a computer when in a tough spot, or against a strong opponent, and in 90% of games don't cheat.

I knew a master who in live chess, if he got board or tired would switch it over and let crafty play for him for a few games.  Then switch back and play himself again.  Obviously tainted ratings like this have a ripple effect throughout the rating system.  Because you never know who is cheating or how much, that's why people distrust online ratings ichabod.

Now I love online chess because of the convenience, and if I do run into a cheater it seems rare enough that I just move on to the next player and it doesn't bother me.  I think there are people who are overly paranoid about online cheating :)

But I prefer OTB chess for many reasons mentioned.  Obviously an online player can take their play just as seriously as I may in a tournament, but for me tournaments bring out a different level of seriousness.  At a club I also like the effect of having a person in front of me, the way you move a piece and hit a clock communicates their feeling even if they have a poker face.

Chess ratings are estimates of future performance based on past performance. Let's say there's a player named Bob who doesn't cheat, and a player named, oh, Oucheater who does cheat. We'll assume they also both have well established ratings: lots of games against a range of players. Bob's rating will predict his performance in his next game with reasonable accuracy. Oucheater's rating will predict his performance as a cheater in his next game with reasonable accuracy. Oucheater's rating predicts his performance as a cheater, using whatever method he uses. Oucheater (if confronted) will insist that he is not cheating, and that his rating predicts his performance without cheating. The fact that Oucheater is misrepresenting what his rating predicts is completely irrelevant to the predictive ability of his rating. This is easy to show, since Oucheater's representations are not taken into account anywhere within the rating formula. Furthermore, it is completely irrelevant to the predictive ability of Bob's rating, whether or not Bob has ever played Oucheater.

Let's assume Oucheater's method of cheating is that he has cloned Magnus Carlsen's brain, which he keeps in a jar. The cloned brain tells him what moves to make. This is cheating. If Magnus Carlsen himself were playing on the site (within the rules), it would not be cheating. But to the rating system, these two situations are completely indistinguishable.

This predictive ability is the only meaning, the only reality, that rating systems have. More cheating online has no effect on this meaning of the rating systems. The reason people think OTB ratings are more meaningful is because they are trying to assign meanings to the ratings that don't exist.

That's all I'm going to say about this here, because I'm not going to hang out in a thread where I'm accused of being a cheater.

I think Ichabod has stated his case very well.

This thread has motivated me to consider not so much whether ratings are accurate measures and forecasters, but rather what they really mean to us.

I am reminded of a rather amateurish song and dance group that performed on a cruise I took a few years ago. Immediately upon finishing their act, they turned to the audience and asked, "How were we?" Professional performers, of course, would never do such a simplistically childish thing, but I could understand their elementary need for instant feedback.

IMO, ratings pretty much fulfill the same function - they sort of give us instant general feedback on how we are doing. They are the applause or booing after a performance, or several performances. The problem with these ratings, however, is that they give us virtually no feedback on the specifics of our performance in any individual game: our strategy, tactics, visualization, etc.; They only indicate our results as compared to others'.

What I would like to get hold of - if and when it exists - is powerful software that could analyze my performance in a specific game, indicate my errors and weaknesses and suggest ways to overcome them. This kind of "rating" would have much more meaning for me than the Elo or Glicko. 

The contention that cheaters do not have an effect on honest players is certainly NOT true if an honest player plays cheaters. If the honest player never plays any cheaters, then it may be true.

I have played more than 2 dozen cheaters ( those who have been caught/banned afterwards) and I lost most of those games so I took a "hit" with each loss to them and so does anyone who plays them. I am sure I have played many more than 2 dozen but many of them arent caught.

The problem with ichabod801's point of view, I think, is that while it's true about the utility of ratings and their function, this isn't the only use of ratings.

The subjective is very much part of everyone's experience.

If you have two pools, for example, identical in practically every respect except one pool has 90% cheaters and one pool has 1% - which pool, as humans participating in them, do we find more worthwhile?

The simple fact is that those who don't cheat find the pool with minimal cheating more worthwhile, more accurate, more reliable, more trustworthy.

So while the ratings in both pools might accurately predict results and performance etc., this is very much only part of the story.

I do play both and imo it is a huge difference. I would go far as said they are uncomparable. O.t.b. is a mind game where on high level not only chess skills matters, but personall skills are maybe even more important. For this reason i think some high rate players without o.t.b. experience wouldn't stand a chance against someone in a real world o.t.b. game, because they simply lack the experience and havn't access to tools like databases and the anaylyse board.

And observing some hight rank games and looking at the insane hight ratings on this site i have to come to the conclusion lot of them make "unhuman" moves not a human would make. I just wonder how big the chance is that a none titled player would be actually higher rated then some strong titled players ... Or how strong they would be really without all the extra tools they use ?

To me online chess is like watching baseball on tv, and OTB chess is like being there at the stadium.

 I'm hearing you loud and clear. Nothing beats the feel of the high quality carved wooden or heavy molded plastics of tornament chess pieces. Picking up one of those sukers and slamming them down on the board to impose your will. The fluent sweeping motion with which we chess folk capture a piece and put it on the side of the board. Heh... I could go on and on describing the unparelleled experience of playing a real live breathing-thinking human being up close and personal with a real chess set, but I would just get way too exited... LONG LIVE OTB CHESS!!  

I started playing OTB, of course, but these days I mostly play on the Internet because it is more convenient. Very occasionally I still play with a few friends OTB. I played in a couple of tournaments when I was younger but I stopped because I found it rather imposing on my time-table. I don't agree with some of the things that were said here, for example that Internet ratings are meaningless. If you have played a significant number of games, they are not meaningless. They are an indicator of your chess ability as much any other ratings. Okay, maybe they are slightly less reliable than Fide ratings because of cheating and some other factors, but still they show something about your chess ability. Isn't that the point of ratings ?

Also, I don't see a big difference between OTB and Internet chess, where exactly is the difference ? I don't remember that I had to learn the game all over again when I started playing on the Internet. Chess is actually a two-dimensional game wherever it is played. (Pieces don't move up and down in any version.) It is true though that one shouldn't rely too heavily on databases and the analysis board in turn-based.

I think that depends on the player, actually. You mentioned guys over 2000 rating here dropping pieces. I've done it, in "turn based" play here, rated in the 1900's. I'm a good enough player that I'd never do that in an OTB game, but sometimes I just check in here and make a quick move in one of my games without thinking. Other times, I spend an hour thinking about a complex game here. So the quality of my play is both vastly better AND vastly worse here compared to OTB, depending on the game and individual situation. I'm just much more consistant OTB (where I'm rated in the 1700's USCF).

It's a real shame that engines have killed off postal/correspondence chess. Gone are the days 2 kings could duel on the chess board. They even killed online longer timed chess and I don't really like blitz. OTB is the only true joy nowadays I think. OTB with hours after hours of time on the clock. That is where you discover who the better man is! No luck, no engines; just two brains and one chess board between them.

It's just that the turn based ratings here are inflated (probably live too, but not as bad), so it's probably not what you expect.

If you get up into 2300-2400 you'll be facing experts/masters who take it more seriously and I'm sure would give you a tough game.

You sound a bit too arrogant. The turn-based ratings here are somewhat inflated, which doesn't make them meaningless just somewhat inflated. Then again I have trouble believing that a 1800 rated player in OTB regularly makes such short work of 2000+ players in online. Anyone could drop a piece from time to time.

And calling your opponent a 'fool' is in extremely bad taste and if you played me in OTB and did that you would probably regret it.

Okay, here is jemptymethods' last game which he lost in 10 moves:

http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=30836271

A fool.

 LOl jempty talks big for a guy that lost in 10 moves.