Bullet'ta puan arttırmak bence de zor. Ben de nadir bullet oynarım. Ama bullet oynadığında dikkat etmen gereken çok fazla şey var.
Ben sadece şu tavsiyede bulunabilirim; İtalyan gibi sık kullanılan zor olmayan(Bird gibi) açılışları seçmen. İlk 4-5 hamleyi ön hamle yapabileceğinden açılışta iyi bir zaman temposu ile başlarsın
Good afternoon. This is how I see this problem. firstly, an algorithm for selecting inconvenient players (fast ones playing unfamiliar openings). This is fine. secondly, sneaking in bots (real cheating). Thirdly, playing around with time, very large lags. This is probably a technical element, but I don’t rule out an attempt at control. welcome to the matrix.
Most chess players seem a few hundred points higher in longer time controls compared to bullet. This is because they more often play the chess position and having more time to think means less chance of missing something and blundering. There are some people who specialize in speed chess and their bullet is a few hundred points higher than their rapid, but this is much more rare and in those cases, it is by the opposite; their playstyle is more about initiative and creative threats, so bullet plays to their advantage more than others because they can utilize the clock better to place maximum pressure onto the opponent.
Two quick thoughts: 1 Each time control is its very own rating pool. One cannot expect that your rating will be the same. 2 Won't we be (relatively) best in the time control we play most and/or take most seriously?
None of us can beat you.
As far as different ratings in different time controls I believe if you want to compare then disregard the rating and look at the PERCENTILE.
This is fascinating (maybe I should get out more).
I followed the sage counsel of @DreamscapeHorizons at #6 and discovered that my rating and my percentile really don't correlate that well. From highest to lowest rating, I'm at 98.6% in Blitz, 99.2% in Rapid (quite similar ratings), 98.5% in Bullet (rated about 70 lower than in Rapid), and 98.9% in Daily (rated about 300 lower than in Bullet). My lowest rating is around 400 below my highest, but the percentages are very close together. At the moment, I think the whole thing "must" be a result of different rating pools in different time limits as per @Toldsted at #5.
What I maybe still find puzzling is I that "know" I'm currently under-graded at Daily having not yet played many Daily games on here and yet I'm at a comparable percentage. Perhaps that just reflects that "postal" used to be my best medium when I was playing regularly (last century)...unless I got too bored or distracted and lost on time, that is.
Thankyou everyone. I'm maybe still a shade bemused but on a much higher plane than I was before you kindly shared your thoughts.
The slower the time control, the more accurately the rating reflects chess skill. At faster time controls, ratings will reflect more nonchess-related factors, such as quality of WiFi, mouse, lag, distractions, etc.
these nonchess factors may even out across the field. So, if you are above average in chess skill, you will be rated higher at slow time controls (where rating is based on skill) than fast time controls (where rating is based on skill and random nonchess factors).
Interestingly (at least I think it might be of interest), I have tried an experiment over the past week or so. I have tended to play a lot more Bullet chess than other formats in the past; because it's quick and easy to fit into one's surrounding life; but over the past week I've played less Bullet. And my Bullet grade has shot up to the point that it's quite close to my other grades.
It occurs to me that maybe over-playing, and possibly some form of resulting unconscious tendency to see one time-limit format as ephemeral, leading to focus relaxation, might have some bearing on things.
As ever, merely mentioned "for what it's worth" - I'm not a psychologist (chess or otherwise) and have not the foggiest idea whether or not such thoughts might hold water.
Age can play a factor in faster time limits, as it does in many things. I'm in my late 70s now, and there is no way I can react quickly enough to play anything such as bullet or blitz these days.
I wasn't even doing well in 30-minute rapid, but improved quite a bit going to 60-minute rapid (although I was crap in my last game). The trouble is it's harder to get quick matches for 60-minute. I've played a couple of 30 + 20 games on Lichess, winning one and losing one (while overlooking a one-move checkmate opportunity in the game I lost!), but that seems a little gimmicky. I observed a 30 + 20 game today where they played for 20 minutes and moved so rapidly that one guy ended up with 38 minutes on his clock and the other with 33. Why play a classical game if you intend to play it like blitz.
I'd like to get into some OTB tournaments in my area, but a lot of them these days are one-day affairs with 35- or 40-minute limits, so I might experiment with some custom times online to see if I can be competitive at all.
As far as fast chess ratings being lower than longer times, it probably is for most of us, but some of the best players such as Magnus seem to be good at all of them.
Playing too much can and does lead to sloppier play. Sports psychologists have referred to this as “overtraining.” If one is tired, physically or mentally, one tends to deviate from proper form. This is true in chess or in sports with repetitive movements. If one continues to train, poor form can result in injury (in sports such as running, wright lifting, pitching, etc) or acquisition of improper technique.
Taking a break can lead to better results. When one returns to the game, one focuses more on proper technique.
I've wondered about this too, as I'm kind of an extreme example of the phenomenon. My chess.com bullet rating is 1000, while my lichess correspondence rating is 2100, a whopping 1100 points of difference. The other formats are in between, but always the slower the game, the higher the rating. To boot, the 1000 elo bullet rating is done by premoving everything from the start, not by playing real chess. When I tried to play bullet normally, my elo dropped from 1000 to 400.
Some possible reasons for the discrepancy:
1. I'm very slow in general, when it comes to speaking, writing, household tasks etc.
2. I'm new to chess, so I haven't internalized the game yet, I need to think quite a lot to make good moves.
3. My playing style is (over?) ambitious, I try to put maximal pressure on the opponent, as opposed to just playing decent moves. This leads to me burning a lot of time in complicated positions.
4. I don't have an opening repertoire that I've memorized, this makes me burn time in the opening phase of the game.
5. I'm bad at thinking on the opponent's clock.
6. I'm 40 years old, most likely already suffering from some degree of cognitive decline.
7. I tend towards perfectionism, double or quadruple checking my lines if given the time to do so. Obviously that kind of time is only available in correspondence chess.
8. Because of my slowness, I tend to play moves based on educated guesswork, rather than calculation, because if I start calculating in a 10 min rapid game, I'll burn the whole 10 min on a single move. This lack of calculation leads to mistakes.
@Sebu13 I'd likely put your specific case down to a mix of (2), (3), (4) and (7) assuming you're right about yourself. Bullet in particular seems to be a game of instinct supplemented by whatever lightning-quick calculations one is capable of (2) with little time to play maximally (3) or multiply re-check (7). I shudder to think about you being impacted by (6) because I'll not see 50 again without a Tardis. (8) might even be a boon at very fast time limits because it's one's feel for the position that seems hugely important.
I myself tend to achieve a grade 100-200 lower in Bullet than I can hit in other slower formats. Wondering about this, I started looking at opponents' profiles and those of my friends. Almost everyone I look at seems to be graded 100-300 lower in Bullet than at slower time limits.
Is there a reason for this?
I know that I for one play worse and worse the less time I have in which to think, but I'd have imagined that that would "even out" and be true for us all; give or take the specially gifted breed of "Bullet Specialists" with amazing physical and mental reflexes. Is it maybe that when shorn of time for deep cognition the non-specialist will lapse towards mediocrity?
Genuinely puzzled: I have no agenda in asking the question other than hoping that someone might be able to enlighten me.