1350 in live, but 2200 in tactics trainer

I don´t want to play against players with a live rating of for example 1350 in bullet which has online rating of 1900 and tactics trainer rating 2200. The reason why is that I lose all the time since my live rating is 1300 and online rating 1600. I want to be able choose players in live chess who is on the same level!  Chess.com must be able to come up with a solution for this. I am loosing my chess interest because of all the frustration of loosing to many games.

This is an interesting problem. So you're playing people in bullet chess who have the same rating as you, but in longer time controls they have a huge rating advantage. But some people have lower ratings in faster time-controls because they are at your level in that time-control. In theory.

Boom.

The thing is that they are not at my level. Well the rating number is at my level, but the skill is much greater. We all know when we are wiped off the board by a much better player. So I go and check the online rating, and I see often a rating of 1900 or 2100 and I suddenly understand why I lost so badly.

Um... What?

Okay if their rating is even close to yours, it means they are losing games to people only a little higher rated. So unless they've only played like 10 games, their rating should accurately represent their strength...

I don't think this is why you are losing to them, this is not a good excuse. Do you see my point?

I've been getting wiped out myself by online players, but some of them have told me that they have problems playing live chess at that level. So it just may be that you've been unlucky to get players who normally don't play well in live chess, but did so against you in those games?

I have 1700+ blitz and standard and 2100+ online, but you will never see me above 1500 bullet. It's impossible! :D I play bullet only for fun, I don't really look at the rating there.

Pretty much trysts, if these guys were that good at bullet chess, their rating wouldn't be 1350...

Well, if you really get frustrated, you might consider playing with (much) weaker players, just to have fun & cheer up. Sometimes I do that kind of stuff, but then I realize I could frustrate them, so know your limits!

Speaking seriously, the more you play, the more you learn. Even World Champions lose occasionally. And ratings are just numbers, don't trust them that much.

Bullet is not chess, you just move pieces randomly... :)

It may be that the people who have very high tactics training but low bullet ratings just haven't played much bullet, so they are underrated due to not having played many games (or not many recently). In general, I would expect tactics training score to be the non-bullet score that correlates best with bullet rating (assuming one has played enough bullet to have learned the totally different strategies for success in bullet "chess").

It would be helpful if the OP could post links to about 5 games as examples, and we could look at the games and see if the person really does appear to be much stronger in bullet and figure out from their other info why their bullet rating might not reflect their true strength.

On the other hand though, if you are playing mainly bullet chess and actually care about improving your play at slower time controls, you're going about it all wrong. That is a recipe for getting better at bullet "chess" but staying a weak player at slower time controls.

@sondredanielsen,

If the person with a 2790 rating was so good as too beat you at 1700 every time, then how is his rating only 1720?!? If he was beating people at 1700 consistantly, his rating would jump each time! Does that make sense at all? If he kept winning, he would be like 2200 before he started finding people about his level...

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you because you're not making any sense....

I see kind of what Sondre is getting at. I sometimes play people in blitz who are ranked in the 1500-1599 range, and they play WAY better than that level. Maybe beat me in 3 straight games. In some cases I look and see that they are really good standard players or are very good tactically.

So, how is it that they are ranked only 1500? Well, it could be that they tend to play only players ranked a lot higher than them. So for example maybe they tend to mostly play blitz games against players ranked 1800 and up. They rarely win ... and therefore their rating doesn't climb ... but if they played players ranked more in their range they would win most games, and their rating would climb.

Also, people are looking for ways that the other player might be underrated (yes, there are many ways this could be the case), but it also could be that the OP is overrated. For example, one might spend lots of time studying traps in openings that one plays and get lots of cheap points that way, while neglecting to improve other chess skills. This would only improve your rating to a certain point, and then you would start getting crushed by people who don't fall for the traps, because they are just much better all-around chess players.

It's also possible that people play a lot when they're tired or drunk or at work and can't pay full attention, and they would lose many more games in such cases, which would make their rating much lower than their true chess strength when playing with full attention and in good physical condition. If you happened to play them when they were playing at full strength, they might play hundreds of points above their current rating.

Yes, there are lots of ways for people to be over/underrated, but the standard rating has really nothing to do with it...

The fact is, sometimes you play people that haven't played that many Blitz games, (or at least haven't in a while) and they are on a sharp up rise. There's really nothing they can do about it. Even if they are only playing people a lot higher rated (unlikely) they will eventually level out...

You are right Sam97, there is nothing they can do about it. But I could have filtered out this sharp up rising person by telling the system that I like to meet a player with max 1350 live rating, and max 1350 online rating.

lol... Suppose I'm 1900 in online rating. but I'm only 1400 in Bullet, I keep playing and playing but I just cant break 1500, But you wont play me because my Online rating is high?

If you play enough games, your rating will be an extremely good indicator if your skill level...

Maybe in order to get good at bullet chess you should stop moving pieces randomly. There's a lot of skill to it, hence why the top bullet players stay as the top bullet players.

Blitz and bullet a very, very different from correspondence chess.  That is why there are different ratings for each one.  Thus, when you play a 2000+ correspondence player in bullet, his bullet skill may only be 1300.  His 2000+ correspondence rating does not make him better at bullet than you.  If it did, you might as well be paired for bullet games based on correspondence ratings, which would be very weird.

Anyway, if you find yourself getting beaten in bullet and blitz and insist it's because they are better than you in correspondence chess, you should stop playing blitz and bullet which don't improve your rating and switch to correspondence where you might actually learn something.

Also, from my experience, tactics trainer ratings are not comparable any other ratings or even tactical ability.