Why Are Correspondence Ratings So Inflated?

I know, I know, because it's easier. But both players have the advantage of opening books, databases, the anlyze feature, notes and being able to confidently work out the variations with a hot mug of hot chocolate, so I don't see it. Look at my rating, it was grossly deflated, and now it's inflated, there's no way I'm a 1700 level player (the highest rated player I beat dropped a piece a few moves in, poor guy). I just don't see it.

The rating pool is more diverse.  There are folks who take extreme care with their games availing themselves of all legal resources and always taking the time to be sure their move is good.  On the other end you have people who can't be bothered with databases, play their own pet openings, and have dozens, if not hundreds of games going at once.  They move quickly to get to the next waiting game.  Some of them would be playing blitz but their internet connections suck.  Some of them are playing on mobile devices for an occasional break from work and really care less about the outcome than the entertainment value.  I'm a 1750 and it's an equally joke rating, but if you're in the first group you just have to deal with rating inflation.  IMHO 

Internet correspondence ratings are inflated by high forfeit volume and too much hasty play (@baddogno's point). Your rating is affected directly (your games) and indirectly (inflated ratings of opponents you play).

I have met three nicks here who understand what a rating system and inflation/deflation is all about, these are: scottrf, Ziryab and petrip.

Listen to them, may be you will learn something, however I'm not optimistic.

I don't get why you seem to be insulting me. You're right, I don't understand, or didn't understand the inflation until it was explained to me. If you don't know something, you ask for an answer.

also, since the skill level online is lower than at most tournaments, it's easier to pick up points.  my rating online is 1650, but OTB I'll be happy with a sloid 1400-1450.  

This is not about you. Your question is legitimate (it has been answered several times here at the forums), but I see posters who took part in similar debates and the thing was explained to them thoroughly and just did not learn a thing.

Online if I put the work in and cared about being able to play quieter positions I could hit 16-1700 easy, but I just want to play for tactics so I can have fun, and I also do the blitz out moves thing as I think quickly

You get what you pay for. I personally enjoy taking my time on every move just to make sure. I still make ridiculous mistakes that make me pretty frustrated like in here:

I've read that Online ratings are inflated by roughly 300 points compared to OTB. Seems about right to me.

yes that is corect, I need to focus more, and need to slow myself down as I see possible sacrifices and try to make those a reality, and I need help in endgames...

Endgames were always the easiest for me. I'm not good at endgames, not compared to masters. But I do feel comfortable in an equal position, sometimes even a worse off one because compared to others at my level I'm fairly good. The middlegame however is where I put in a lot of work with databases and different variations.

middlegames come easy to me, because I form a plan, and do what I can to achieve that plan (typically this involves getting my pieces very close to the enemy king)

16-1700?  Why so low?  If you put the work in you could whip Anand.

I don't have the time to put in to become Super GM

When the rating differences between online ,standard,and blitz  are huge,say 600-900 points,and the player has no title,cheating is a definate possibility.These are the players whose blitz rating is 1600-1700 ,yet their online rating is 2400-2500,yet they have no title.

I once saw someone with a standard rating of 1900 and a blitz rating of 900. I didn't report him though, his standard games were too old to access.

provided that they still play those. for example my bullet rating is 1000, but I don't play anymore, blitz Is the same, Standard hovers around 1300, my Correspondence hovers in the 1400's and I am working to get the last two into the 16-1800 range.

I know for me personally, I play mostly correspondence chess as a learning tool so I can train my mind to think tactics, calculate variations etc, and have had a lot of players start games and then never finish them which makes my rating go up so I have quit paying attention to that rating as it is not a true reflection of my progress. I at one time had won 6 games in a row because the opponent simply quit playing and time ran out.

We all know cheating exsists - but I wide rating spread doesn't indicate that cheating is taking place.

There could be many factors:For young players, like myself - I have only been playing chess 5 or 6 months now, the pressure of OTB kills us. We get in time trouble alot. We become aware of time troubles in the past and don't look at all the variations. Then, Whammm, Blunder or obvious wrong move. 

I do not know how many games I have gone back and relooked at and felt like running my head into a brick wall - "how stupid can I be!?!"

Young players who are serious about learning this game (being a 800-900 and having people score minitures on you is not my idea of a fun hobby) have a lot of material, books, databases, manuscripts, videos, GM games, we have the infomation - we just do not have it at instant recall in our minds yet. Give me 3 days to find a move on the other hand and I probably find a much better move than I would OTB - plus the time difference gives me time to formulate a stredegy - not something easy for a young player to do OTB.

I also think not everyone approaches correspondence the same. For me it is a great learning tool - I love looking at all my canidate moves, and exporing every variation on each one before I make a move - it gives me times to really study positions. I think a lot of correspodence chess plays play more instintivly as if they are playing OTB.

I do not have the expereince that most everyone here has, so I maybe treading in deeper waters than I want - but these are a few of my observations - but again 5 months is not enough time compared to those of you with life long expereince.

Raymond