Why rating matters

I'm too generous. In Live one minute chess, I accept challenges daily from players in the 1300s and 1400s. Sometimes I lose. Often I lose the initial game, especially before that first cup of coffee. These losses anger me (you don't want to know). A typical day resembles this morning's experience: I play awful and slow and lose on time with the consequence -14. I offer a sequence of rematches in which I thoroughly thrash my opponent seeing +2 after each. The tally after seven games is clear domination and a net of -2.

I suppose that's why most of the players over 1800 seem to offer only unrated seeks. I don't play unrated one minute. What's the point? It is junk chess anyway, so it might as well be gambling for rating points.

=P ... I agree.

I'm most often on in the mornings (5:30-9:00 Pacific time), but might be on any time of day or night. Every other month or so I'll even be on at 2:00 in the morning because I cannot sleep.

So ratings "matter" because they provide some infinitesimal measure of meaning to a chess format that can only be described as "junk"? I guess gambling does help make the world go round. Yes, dropping 1 game to a lower-rated oppoent and winning the next 5, or even 10, in a row does horrible and unfair things to your rating. But this is not limited to 1 minute games.

I agree that only the turn-based ratings on this site are worth pursuing with any seriousness.

I thought I was the only person who thought that way, there's something intangible that makes online blitz chess just not as satisfying or well-thought out as it otherwise would be. At least, it's true for me.

I take bullet very seriously!

I recently beat some 2700 rated (standard 2700) in bullet! Although he was dominating like there was no tomorrow, i still won on time :D

And shach.. you are fairly weak.. in live.. but fairly strong.. in standard?

SerbianChessStar

It just takes a long while for people's Live ratings to match their Online ratings due to the sheer amount of games played. In order for everyone's ratings to advance in Live, people have to play more games there.

I've noticed that it's very common for people who have 1500 or 1600+ Online ratings to be rated only 1300, even as low as 1200 and 1100! in Live simply because everyone starts at 1200, and all these super-rated 1200s keep beating each other, so the ratings rise very slowly.

The number of games is not the cause of lower ratings. I've played well over 4000 bullet games (this number is since all Live ratings were reset with an upgrade), but fewer than 400 turn-based games. My turn-based rating is 300 points higher on average.

A better explanation is the paucity of strong players in Live. My opponents in Live are nearly always lower rated, although I have played a couple of NMs.

Maybe because I'm pretty tired, but I can't tell if you guys are actually saying the same thing?  Err... not MC's first paragraph, but the last part anyway.

Anyway yeah, the 300-400 point difference seen among almost everyone is because it's simply a different pool of players.  If the constant and large influx of beginners who came to this site to try out turn-based also played 50 live games each I think the ratings would be closer.

Secret agent man, secret agent man,
they're giving you a number,
and they're takin' away your name

Sounds like online chess measures your overall skill to play chess and live bullet chess measures your ability to play chess with hardly a chance to think or attempt to figure out any counter strategy against an opponent and how fast you can click

That's close to being right -- it tests what you know already about the game without giving you a chance to think up anything new.  While speed chess often stresses a persons tactical ability, positional  understanding plays a roll as well.  So for example weaker blitz players will hurt their position in ways that the stronger players know automatically to avoid and then also know instantly how to punish... it's a lot more than just who can click faster...

Ziryab, playing matches with too low rated players might be considered as a rating obuse. If you were to play in a tournament then it's OK. Because you would play only 1 or 2 game with guys with rating +/-300 but on the internet you can play matches and obuse the rating.

I personally prefer to play with [-100 +3000] of my rating. It simply gives me more game and less trash -- even on 1 minutes rating DOES matter.

And I give you an advice ... don't play chess before the morning coffee ;) it would spare you some bad moments.

im an extremely low rated live chess player. too low and played too many games to help it now! however, now, that rating is proving to be quite deceptive as ive won quite a bit now!

I am well aware that ICC defines repeated games against lower rated opponents as abuse. My experience here, though, adds some nuances to the assumption. I want quick games and I don't want to wait for them. When I log in I accept the highest rated open challenge for a 1 0 game--typically someone in the 1400s. If I lose, my rating drops 12-14 points. I play enough games to get back these 12-14, typically 6-7 more games. In order to increase my rating by "picking on" weaker players, I need to win 90% or more. In fact, by playing lower rated players I am offering them a gift: a chance to win big with little risk. If there's any abuse, I'm the victim.

I didn't mean it to sound like an occusation. I wanted to say that with these gifts you cannot get better rating and you cannot improve your own game. You cannot get much from such games.

With my gifts, my opponents improve their game, although I doubt anyone does much improving playing one minute, which is more like taking drugs.

I did not take your comment as an accusation.

I think about everyone prefers that range (well I'm more like -100 to +400) but as I'm sure you know once your bullet rating gets high enough it's hard to find similarly rated players on this site -- and if you're just looking for a quick game and don't' want to wait it's just the luck of the draw.  I notice even your bullet rating is a few hundred points above your average opponent's rating.  My difference is even bigger, although my method was to put out a seeks and play whoever accepted.

I don't agree.

Playing on 1 minute cannot improve your 2h game but it can definitely improve your 1 minute game. I get your point though -- 1 min chess is not serious but some great players think the same way about 5 minutes games and even for 15 minutes games... If you play seriously on 1 minute you can improve your results (and play) by playing stronger opponents.