Why play turn-based?

Also Ziryab if standard live players are so weak below 2000 why do you struggle to maintain a 1700 rating?

Karpov has hung pieces before. Your example proves that a 1600 player is capable of losing a game quickly. Brav-O.

Your opponent's Online rating is 1622, which is about the same as his Standard rating in Live, and quite a bit higher than his blitz rating.

Possibly maybe he is used to playing Online where you can use opening books, so you never need to learn that an early f4 is almost always to be avoided when playing against the French defence ? It would seem that there wasn't much for your opponent to do once d4 was taken out.

After eight games? Hardly what I call a struggle.

They are not all weak. Some are far weaker than their rating would indicate. Some are stronger.

To stare at a computer screen for 30 minutes to two hours on a 50-50 chance that I'll get a good game is not my best use of the day. Bullet is better, because five minutes is enough to learn whether my opponent is making random moves to play the clock (most of them) or struggling to play a good game very fast. Blitz is better becuase the games are over fast, too.

BTW, Kupov3, I do check for you when I'm in live because I expect it would be a good game. Do you play game/20 or game/15 with an increment from zero to three seconds?

14.Ne2 and White is fine, perhaps followed by b3 and Bb2 when White has enough force to place a minor piece on d4 and end Black's attack.

An early f4 is popular and useful in most lines of the French, as it is in the Sicilian.

I was talking about the French lines with 1. e4 e6 2.d4 d5 not other lines that transpose into other openings.

Also, it is a bad form to advertise short wins in such a public forum. I also notice a contradiction that u played only a few standard games in Live and draw conclusions about it while we are supposed to provide hard evidence.

This doesn't seem to me like a friendly invitation to a game but rather an attempt to use argumentum ad baculum if it works. (If it doesn't it will not be advertised here, I know.)

You're right I apologize. Judging from your blitz and USCF ratings I assume that you would have absolutely no problem maintaining a standard rating of 1800+ on live chess. 

I doubt however that you could get to 2000. Live chess ratings are lower in my opinion because of the lack of high rated players, however that's often in keeping with USCF tournaments (how many masters play at your local chess club?). Ratings tend to be more synced with USCF (in your case this appears to be true as well) from live.

Now your other argument about percentiles. You've implied that 0.8% of FIDE rated players are rated 2400+, this is untrue. So what percentile does a strong class A player (1850-1950) ring in at? I assume it's in the 95th or 96th percentile, given that 1450 or so is the 50th percentile.

Your argument seems to be that live ratings are too low for some reason, when really they compare quite well with USCF equivalents. It's the CC ratings which are "inflated" (to use a very incorrect term).

You cite a 1600 players weak chess as an example and say that a 1600 USCF'er wouldn't play like that during an OTB tournament. You're probably right, however there's a lot more at stake during an OTB tournament, a lot more reason to try to win. Sometimes people don't care as much about an online chess game.

If you take a look at my recent games (all unrated losses) you'll see exactly that. Shoddy chess playing because I don't care to win, and I'm spending about five seconds on each move (though Nytik really did scalp me >.<).

I play 20/10 usually. If I see you I'd accept a challeng, but don't expect a 'good' game.

I'll play Ziryab but 1. it will be at the time I feel like it and 2. it will not have anything to do with the conclusions of this debate. Especially because I expect to win.

Lol. I wouldn't say "no problem"! Every time I get over 1900 on Playchess (couple of times per year), I get cocky and drop rapidly into the high 1500s before I slowly climb back up.

I have a hard time keeping my blitz and bullet here over 1800, and think it would take real effort to get my standard above 1800. Maintaining it would require diligence. If I made it a priority, I could get my standard rating over 2000 eventually, just as I plan to get my USCF over 2000 before old age dementia sets in.

I stated that I don't know the FIDE percentiles, but provided a link that suggested that 2400 was close to 1% (not far from 0.8%). I would have thought the percentage would be higher because until a few years ago no one could get a FIDE rating unless they were over 2000. Now, I believe, the floor is 1400, which lets in a flood of "weak" players.

For the USCF, percetile data is readily available. 1800 is the top 12%; 1900 is the top 8%.

One master lives in my town. I'm 1/2 of 3 in OTB play against him. I'm the #2 active player in my club, although there are two others that have played in the past three years that are higher than me, and the master that plays once per year (making me #5).

20/10 seems a bit long for me (it would be better in the 10 were a time delay, rather than Fischer time), but I'll make an exception to go to battle with you.

Everyone plays a shoddy game now and then; for me they run in batches.

Good luck with that! (you'll need it.)

Now, that's argumentum ad baculum.