So i love playing 10min rapid chess. My rating is around 1600-1650. In blitz 5min i have only 1.3k and i dont get it. The opponents seem much stronger and they dont really blunder all that much. In rapid if i lost against 1.1k player i would probably quit playing chess but in blitz its common for me.
So do you guys think i just need time to adapt or are blitz ratings much tougher at lower levels ? Also i tend to play at 90% accuracy or so in rapid and in blitz its like 5 blunders per game lol
Although at my level, games are usually decided by the first person to make a boneheaded blunder (unless it's an especially simple game.) The chess.com analyzer hates me
this is basically every game in bullet over 2000 and games at the 1500-2200 range elsewhere. although you never know when your opponent might counterblunder, at these ranges pretty much there's a blunder in every game. at the master level for longer time controls though, those games are honestly about exploiting inaccuracies and bad planning IMO
So i love playing 10min rapid chess. My rating is around 1600-1650. In blitz 5min i have only 1.3k and i dont get it. The opponents seem much stronger and they dont really blunder all that much. In rapid if i lost against 1.1k player i would probably quit playing chess but in blitz its common for me.
So do you guys think i just need time to adapt or are blitz ratings much tougher at lower levels ? Also i tend to play at 90% accuracy or so in rapid and in blitz its like 5 blunders per game lol
now this is a strange argument but I've honestly had some experiences with it before. lower rated blitz players are surprisingly strong (1000 to 1500 range). here I think its just good to better understand tactical and positional play and just practice your pattern recognition and you'll eventually get out of there
Blitz is harder because there's less time. Simple as that.
This wouldn't affect rating since all players are facing the same handicap. It's most likely more to do with the idea that players move from rapid to blitz when they get better meaning that all the new players are on rapid and the experienced players are on blitz.
A couple of days ago I was in a very long line and tried blitz on lichess_org. My rapid rating there is around 1700 and it was quite easy to advance to 1500 within an hour. After I came back home I expected the same on chess_com, however after 2 days I am just getting closer to 1100 while my rapid here is 1400. I think there is something different in the way points are calculated here.
So there must be something that balances this. Are there as many people whose blitz rating is higher or is there a wave in distribution of blitz ratings? I mean maybe for ex. there are more people at some ratings than there should be because they play lots of games in a row and that makes harder to distinguish their strengths for the rating algorithm. They win against stronger opponents when they are fresh and lose to weaker ones when get tired. But still not explaining it right? Try this one; Suppose you are a 1650 player in real; If there are more players between 1500-1700 who actually have 1800 ratings who lose to weaker or equal opponents (because they don't care and just trying to have fun) and win against stronger opponents (because fighting harder is more fun against them) you will end up having a rating much less. This makes sense right? And any other possible scenarios which base on that "losing against weaker and equal but winning against stronger" type players are more often between a rating gap can explain that. "losing against weaker or equal but winning against stronger" may be caused by other reasons too: some players focus on traps or some other tactical tricks which fail on slower games but which increase blitz rating, or may use same old attacking ideas which works in most positions but doesn't work in slower games; some players memorize so many opening moves which work against only stronger opponents in faster games. Also, some players may use unfair help only when they face a stronger opponent. But also there must be an imbalance in the distribution of these types of players on the rating scale, right? Or it should be even again? I think these gaps should be around 1150 and 1650 in which ratings most players start to get more serious studies on chess theory and practice.
Blitz is harder because there's less time. Simple as that.
This wouldn't affect rating since all players are facing the same handicap. It's most likely more to do with the idea that players move from rapid to blitz when they get better meaning that all the new players are on rapid and the experienced players are on blitz."
Still this doesn't explain why a player's rating is lower in blitz. He still may have a higher rating in blitz as well . It is natural to have more ratings if you are strong and less ratings if you are weak regardless of the count of weaker or stronger players in that pool as long as you win against weaker and lose against stronger.
One of my strengths is that I can visualize very well and calculate pretty much infinitely, seeing the pieces move around on the board in order to find long or crazy combinations with a couple minutes of thought.
Does that help me in blitz? Nope.
Rapid: 1500
Blitz: 1000/1100
You can calculate infinitely? Your rating would not be as low as it is if you could calculate infinitely. Your just a beginner like I am.
five years later and not the same guy, but I get it, he is clearly exagerating with the word "infinite", but given enough time I also can visualize pretty deep, when I started playing chess, my main objective (wich I can still not do) is play with my eyes closed, chessdojo has an amazing first video about this they have more but I can only follow the first game of the first video at this point, 1.c4 in the second game throws me of too much)
Whenever I improve at this my oponents feel weaker for a while until my rating catches up, Im nowhere near to being even mediocre at the game, but my biggest strength is definitely visualizing, and after that maybe opening theory (im merely 950 so I feel like recognising more than 5 openings is pretty good, if not, then im only good at visualising)
Blitz is hard for me because I literally cannot move fast enough.
Others mentioned about technique and different skill sets, I tend to agree as well.
Exavy my case
Bullet and rapid go hand by hand but blitz I just cant do it.
Rapid around 1650 same bullet.
Blitz im struggling in the 1400
Exavy my case
Bullet and rapid go hand by hand but blitz I just cant do it.
Rapid around 1650 same bullet.
Blitz im struggling in the 1400
You guys crack me up.
I’m 800 bullet, 1200 blitz and 1600 rapid. Not having the added time to think, visualize and calculate is my handicap but speed chess is still a fun drinking game.
Impressive differences! I thought I was extreme (currently 13xx, 17xx, 19xx). You should take up daily chess where you have the most time plus an analysis board, database and books (I am currently 23xx).
It's type 2 thinking - slow and conscious. Interesting how many chess players don't get so much advantage from extra time - I think they must rely more on type 1 thinking (fast and mostly subconscious).
It just depends on how the site was set up.
It could just as easily have been the case that rapid or daily was the hardest rating to get to a certain number... turns out blitz is the hardest for most people... it has nothing to do with blitz itself.