Are classical players much weaker than blitz/rapid players? If yes, should I stop playing classical?

@Blundered_the_queen said in #10:
> [...] I guess I'm going to sit on this "1800" rating forever and never play another classical game again. :D

Please don't make this BIG mistake a lot of players make. Don't get a slave to the rating number.

You will be playing with the fear of losing points instead of truely enjoying chess (or whatever other competitive sports you practice).

Just some thoughts on how our brain works: If you fear something (which means stress to your brain), your frontal lobe will be "overstrained". You may know this effect from not finding the easiest answers in a test-situation. The result is a huge (brain) underperformance in the given situation.

This is how I personally look at the "rating-situation", especially in OTB play:
I only want to have a rating that I REALLY deserve, not one that I get by accident/luck/incomplete data/... This gives me the best position for improving my play from where I am at the moment.

Imagine you and your colleague (both with approximately the same playing strength) just joined a chess club and are both about to get your first official rating after playing some OTB games.
You for example play about 11 games in your first season (in a low league) and get a "relatively deserved" rating of about 1500 ELO in the end.

Your colleague only plays 4 games in the same league with similar results as you and then, suddenly because the team from your club, that plays in a higher league, needs someone to help them out, because one of the players got ill. Now imagine, your colleague jumps in and magages to draw against a 2100 rated player that had a "bad" day. After that, your colleague doesn't show up for any other games and at the end of the season get a rating of about 1800 and thereby (because of his rating) will be put in a higher league team for the next year.

Guess who will have a better chess experience next year?

Have fun, hopefully without the fear of losing pionts, which are at the end just ones and zeroes in a database!

@Darksouls said in #3:
> the players that make up the general pool are less than rapid and blitz and the players are slightly weaker, now does that mean don't bother with it no, because you need to take the time and look into a position, find ideas and play them... what makes strong players strong is their dedication, practice, study routines, their creative, cunning, they hold positions, they can fight back from lost positions... they generate ideas, plans and execute them faster, more precise... everything takes time and practice... but they are beatable
try

Some people are better at classical and some people are better in Blitz.

I think you can get pretty far in blitz if you just avoid blunders and move quick. I'm slow so I have to check every move twice to make sure I'm not about to hang a piece or a fork somewhere.

I often play in classical arenas on fridays, and there are players there that play just like blitz. They don't take time to think of variations, they just play moves. Doesn't mean I can beat them - but I've found I perform better on average against those players than ones that take time to think. Also many people beserk in classical arenas, and I never do.

#1 et al,

You might enjoy hearing the perspective of the #3 rated Classical player on this site. I wanted to share them when I saw your question last week, but I forgot where I saw them until today (they are in the spectator comments section of the following game) : lichess.org/EovNYCXx

Here are some of the highlights :

"Here is the thing about the classical ratings, barely any of the top players on Lichess or online chess in general play classical"

"I would imagine if I was a professional, I wouldn't want to spend an hour playing someone on a computer for no reason"

"I would imagine if i played someone in the top 10 of bullet, blitz, or rapid... in a classical match, they would wreck me if they wanted to"

(End)

Certainly everyone has the potential to play better / play their best, at classical time controls. But my guess is that a lot of the people that play chess for a living reserve their best serious classical efforts for over-the-board chess events. When they play on Lichess it's with a different mindset and probably more pure fun than at an OTB event. A serious OTB game is going to be stressful and tense. It might be fun -- well "fullfilling" is probably a better word -- in the aftermath, or as a contest winds down and they know they've played a fantastic game. But for the majority of a game it's bloodsport, to parphrase Fred Renfield, and not exactly fun and games.

Playing long time controls is exhausting as hell if you do it properly. Today I played some 30+20, but I barely went under 30 min (that’s why I missed all kinds of checks and simplifications and hung a stalemate too). The scrub rated pool is really allot softer than at comparable rapid rating.
Finding matches takes forever and there’s a good chance you get paired with a 1500?.

the higher the pool of player is of a field, the lower is your probability of winning.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution

blitz > bullet> classic (example)

If yes

play

else

not play

Your answer would be yes, but I d still say no. If you enjoy playing classic, then choose classic until you are sure, you got the hang of it, because with classic you lay a good foundation for chess since you really think about calculation/patterns/sequences

on a personal note.

I started with bullet and it was hard time for me to get the hang of classic/blitz, dont make the same mistake like I did. Now I regret it.

I agree with the motion to not concern yourself with a number, especially if you feel it is inaccurate for any reason, just because it's higher number than you've achieved before. Ratings are more for pairing purposes and relative past performance indicating your likely overall strength. However, in the end it's just a number and only meaningful when used in the appropriate context. I used to play another game in my teens years ago where initially there was a rating system and everyone was obsessed with the ratings, looking for easy wins to gain points, avoiding known good players, and the ratings soon became less meaningful since people would artificially inflate their ratings when their skill was not there. Then the rating system went away and suddenly the mindset changed in the community. Suddenly people were only interested in playing the best players and improving in the game, the only way to look good was to actually be good and earn your place as a top player in the game by beating players known to be good. The point here is don't chase the rating, chase the checkmates and the rating will follow you. Play classical if you like it and you think it helps you play better chess, regardless if your rating may take a dip as a result. If you continue to practice and improve, you'll get that 1800 rating back and maybe even higher. Have fun!

-Jordan

Once you attain the ability to survive an opening and its critical transition into a favorable middle game, this should lead to a winning end-game ... once you've got the feel for how all that flows, you should be able to play even 3 minute games successfully.

Be advised, however, you'll need to know lots of openings, at least the first few moves, and the more theory the better, I guess ...

Beyond the opening, a blitz player must be able to rapidly identify, if not entire board positions, then at least the smaller section of the board of tactical interest ...

IF you play even a few thousand 10 minute games equally as both black and white, you should be able to step up to 5 minute games and be able to enjoy them with continuous improvement ...

And finally, never forget the great benefit of a qualified coach you are able to work with ...