Rating differences between live chess and online chess

MGleason

My online (turn-based) chess.com rating tends to be upper 1400s to lower 1500s.  My live chess rating tends to be somewhere in the 1200s.

I know I blunder a lot more in live chess, but with less time to think, I would assume the same is true for everyone.

Is the difference in my quality of play between live and online that much more than the average player?  Or is the quality of the opposition stronger in live?  Do strong players play live chess significantly more than online?

Also, does anyone know how good a proxy chess.com ratings are for FIDE ratings for 1200-1800ish players?

MGleason

Thanks, so my ratings difference is indeed due to a difference in the quality of the opposition and not merely to weaker play on my part.

Some people do adjust better to shorter time limits than others, but 250ish points seems like a lot.  I destroy 1250ish players quite comfortable in online (turn-based) chess, and to be one in live chess seemed a bit odd...

AbelDean

I have wondered about that myself. I am not sure how the respective ratings are calibrated. If you have 1200 rating in blitz games, would that mean your typical blitz game on paper is roughly just as a skilled as a game on paper of a lower-skilled player who is rated 1200 with 3-days per move? Or is the rating difference just due to higher-skilled players congregating on blitz and 1200 is the average in all game types?

Irish-Guy

Hi Michael,

Yes, I have had these same questions for several years. In several of my blogs I mention these things.

My belief is that stronger players tend to play Blitz because they already know how to play chess at higher levels and do not need as much time to calculate their moves. However, Kramnik always stated that fast chess such as Blitz can often cause players to develop bad habits. This is especially true for lower rated individuals. I truly believe that one needs to study and develop master level chess skills before attempting Blitz for ratings. This is why I try to stay away from playing Blitz, but now and then I am 'tempted' and I usually lose, with a Blitz rating that is shameful. Oh well Embarassed So... I personally train with Deep Fritz 14 and have actually had some very intense games at the 2400 level, but often lose at the lower levels because Fritz moves so fast at the lower levels that I tend to move faster and make more mistakes, but at the higher levels I calculate better and often draw and sometimes win.

My wish: that I could play others in person more than once per year for instance. However, I am very busy with many other interesting endeavors and my life is truly blessed. Take care my chess friend. Thanks for your comment on my blog. ---Irish Guy

hhnngg1

On chess.com, a 1200 blitz player is a lot stronger than 1200 long-game player. I wouldn't be surprised to see 1500 non-blitz players getting beaten handily by 1200 blitz rated players.

 

There's a barrier to entry with blitz that weeds out the weakest players that leave pieces en prise under time pressure - you won't see many green noobs playing blitz since it's too fast, and the ratings reflect it.

adumbrate

what would a 1900 blitz player be better than then?

MGleason

I'm a 1500ish non-blitz player, and I do well to keep my blitz rating much above 1200 (currently it's below).  Now, I do make more blunders in blitz, but so does everybody.

hicetnunc
MGleason wrote:

(...)

Also, does anyone know how good a proxy chess.com ratings are for FIDE ratings for 1200-1800ish players?

That's a bit difficult to compare because blitz is blitz, and turn-based is quite different from OTB long time controls too (analysis boards and use of books are legal in turn-based).

That being said, you can use (blitz+150) or (turn-based-100) as estimates (up to 2000 on chess.com)

mcris

I have a blitz/rapid (live) rating on aother site that is same with turn-based rating here. Of course my live rating here is lower Surprised

jabedabedoo

Interesting discussion, be it a bit older 6 years ago.
My daily is about 920 ~ 890 if I estimate, several games I had to end or I was distracted.
For a serious game, it's 950 perhaps, yet I always play 3:2 and my highest win was from 1600 in a tournament. I'm just starting to play daily chess. It's interesting to think a bit more instead of those quickys, so I don't know where I well end. Though now I think a lot more about moves, i do use the analysis board but not the opening (isnt the later 'opening book' a bit cheating?).
I also create pre moves, based upon analysis. 

I wonder if daily chess is about 200 points higher.
Or if that gets far higher that i am under performing at 3:2  
time will tell

MGleason
jabedabedoo wrote:

Interesting discussion, be it a bit older 6 years ago.
My daily is about 920 ~ 890 if I estimate, several games I had to end or I was distracted.
For a serious game, it's 950 perhaps, yet I always play 3:2 and my highest win was from 1600 in a tournament. I'm just starting to play daily chess. It's interesting to think a bit more instead of those quickys, so I don't know where I well end. Though now I think a lot more about moves, i do use the analysis board but not the opening (isnt the later 'opening book' a bit cheating?).
I also create pre moves, based upon analysis. 

I wonder if daily chess is about 200 points higher.
Or if that gets far higher that i am under performing at 3:2  
time will tell

Using the opening book in daily chess is not cheating.  Daily chess has different rules, based on the different history and culture of correspondence chess where books, collections of historical games, etc., were used to play at as high of a level as possible.

Chess.com's daily chess permits static resources such as books, databases, etc.

One would expect you to play at a higher level in daily chess - but that's also true of your opponents.  So ratings are usually roughly similar.  However, some people struggle with faster time controls more than others, and so will be lower-rated in blitz.  Some people are really quick, and so will be higher-rated in blitz.  The correlation isn't perfect, but in most cases it's reasonably good.

jabedabedoo

@MGleason, Yes that's true, probably people should be able to study together at some point in a famous game, and say after x checkout alternative paths. Especially in those days when there were no computers skilled people discussed and tried against people, or to learn how other good players played. Nowadays people like Magnussen have learned by computer a lot.
Chess computers as made by google are now the best chess 'players', and introduce novelties to pro players. People buy even opening preperations, .. its kinda weird as well.

Personally, I think though one has to play the opponent and be reactive if like me you don't know all there is to know and just have a great time when you win, or a nice insight when you lose.