The main problem is that chess ratings are completely arbitrary. They don't measure anything absolute, so they can't be easily calibrated to match each other.
You don't seem to understand that ratings only compare you to other players in the particular group being rated, to help you find good matches..
Look at the graph of player ratings and you will see that your 1626 blitz rating puts you into the top 10% of blitz players here on chess.com.
Wow, according to that graph the mean is about 1100 which is pretty messed up. The ELO system is supposed to be a Gaussian distribution with a mean of 1500, not 1100. I guess they are re-defining ELO.
The pool of blitz players does seem to be pretty strong here.
For instance, I am low 1800s USCF, but I have a 1500 blitz rating here. Even if 5 of my 23 losses here were out of my hands due to connectivity issues (and one due to a mysterious glitch with a knight frozen and unmovable on g8 throughout the entire game), I still seem to be no more than 1600 blitz on this site.
I have seen far too many posts on distributions and ELO system explanations on these forums. Despite all of these, it makes intuitive sense to me that the rating pools should be normalized such that a typical class-C player has a 1500 rating in all categories, a typical class-B player has a 1700 in all categories, a typical class-A player has a 1900 rating in all categories, etc. I don't care if this requires non-linear weighting to be applied at different rating levels or deviation from a true ELO scale.
The "pool" of online blitz players seems to be MUCH stronger than regular tournament players.
For whatever reasons, this is true. I could swear that some 1200 level blitz players I've played on here are 1800s USCF. I can hang with Class B players OTB, but my highest 5 minute blitz rating here on chess.com is 1240...
Also some people have a bad mouse / bad connection / don't play blitz often. You really can't go off of book knowledge.
FWIW, like most people my chess.com blitz is lower than my USCF.
I think it's because most blitz players on chess.com are actually Magnus Carlsen. He's read all of Donald Duck ("DONALD DUCK !!! nobody reads Donald Duck!" - Karl Ove Knausgaard) and has nothing else to do.
it's actually the opposite for me, although NO where near as drastic. My USCF rating is as of now 1470, but my chess.com blitz rating is at 1550.
Wow, that's impressive. Maybe you are underrated in USCF?
Or maybe you play lots of blitz and know good tricks / tricky repertoire?
I don't understand how it is possible to be a 2100+ USCF rated player and have a rating in five-minute chess of 1550.
Some of the difference might just be that I am bad at thinking fast, but, come on, 600 points???
Judging from my opponents' opening book knowledge I would put them as mid A-players, about 1900. So, yes, maybe I am only an "A-player" at blitz, but that still does not explain at least 300-400 points of difference.
I mean OTB there is no chance on the planet I would EVER lose to a USCF 1550 at ANY time limit. They drop pieces and make basic positional errors. I mean if I put a clock in front of some 1500 at my club and played blitz it would be a joke, I would win 100 games in a row. In fact, even when I play blitz over the board with weak A-players (1800 or so) I crush them consistently.
So, what is the story with online blitz? 1600 players are actually candidate masters (2100)? That's what seems to be the case. The "pool" of online blitz players seems to be MUCH stronger than regular tournament players.
Don't have too much confidence about playing 1500s. When I was rated 1381 earlier this year, I crushed a 2000 (I am now 1642). I suppose older players who are rated 1500 are one thing, but a young player with that rating could be improving quickly.
possibly, most of the guys at my club have this trend as well. One guy is rated around 1670 ish USCF but is 1800 here at chess.com. I think it is mostly because we live in a largely rural area without any good tournaments (we are always at the top of the rating brackets even though 1470 probably is a laughable rating anywhere else) so we are underrated USCF.
possibly, most of the guys at my club have this trend as well. One guy is rated around 1670 ish USCF but is 1800 here at chess.com. I think it is mostly because we live in a largely rural area without any good tournaments (we are always at the top of the rating brackets even though 1470 probably is a laughable rating anywhere else) so we are underrated USCF.
It all depends on your personal standards what a good rating is. I wouldn't call 1470 laughable.
true, but to be starting off playing 2nd board at an open scholastic tournament with that rating would be unbelieveable in bigger cities with better players. Of course it IS a scholastic tournament but still. The place we go to hosts four such tournaments a year and I've always been either 2nd or 3rd highest rated. This year I'll probably be the highest rated since my friend graduated.
to the op, do you play rated tournament chess often?
I'm a 1532 rated USCF chessplayer with a blitz-high-rating of 165x
I am definitely underrated in USCF but I don't see anything as drastic as yours.
Yeah, 600 is a lot. Maybe he doesn't play online much. Once he gets used to it I'm sure he'll do better.
Unless it's a connection issue or something.
@RobK44 anything legal is within the parameters of the rules and should be respected. What are you saying is bad?
Wow, according to that graph the mean is about 1100 which is pretty messed up. The ELO system is supposed to be a Gaussian distribution with a mean of 1500, not 1100. I guess they are re-defining ELO.
Well I guess the mean of 1100 on chess.com is caused by the fact that chess.com starts you out with a 1200 rating, so more people drop back 100 elo from 1200 to 1100 than raise 300 elo from 1200 to 1500.
I don't understand how it is possible to be a 2100+ USCF rated player and have a rating in five-minute chess of 1550.
Some of the difference might just be that I am bad at thinking fast, but, come on, 600 points???
Judging from my opponents' opening book knowledge I would put them as mid A-players, about 1900. So, yes, maybe I am only an "A-player" at blitz, but that still does not explain at least 300-400 points of difference.
I mean OTB there is no chance on the planet I would EVER lose to a USCF 1550 at ANY time limit. They drop pieces and make basic positional errors. I mean if I put a clock in front of some 1500 at my club and played blitz it would be a joke, I would win 100 games in a row. In fact, even when I play blitz over the board with weak A-players (1800 or so) I crush them consistently.
So, what is the story with online blitz? 1600 players are actually candidate masters (2100)? That's what seems to be the case. The "pool" of online blitz players seems to be MUCH stronger than regular tournament players.