Getting better in Bullet • page 2/2 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

... playing casual bullet will mean you are playing numerous low quality games against very weak players who have no correlation with strength of play and yet there ratings suggest something else.

How are ratings achieved by very weak players which have no correlation to their actual strength of play?

@Firegoat7 said in #6: > ... playing casual bullet will mean you are playing numerous low quality games against very weak players who have no correlation with strength of play and yet there ratings suggest something else. How are ratings achieved by very weak players which have no correlation to their actual strength of play?

Firegoat7

#12

@TomBrooklyn said in #11:

How are ratings achieved by very weak players which have no correlation to their actual strength of play?
In real OTB the playing strength of a chess player is reflected in their rating, which is a mathematical representation of their playing strength measured as consistency of results against a pool of players. Ratings can be trusted.

In online chess, due to numerous technical inconsistencies, there are gaps in skills magnified by different factors.
In the context of bullet the two main factors are accuracy and speed.

Accuracy is your real strength over a significant number of games.
Speed is a technical agility ie a physical attribute.

On this criteria alone we ought to realise that certain rating groupings have relatively consistent numbers that reflect both accuracy and speed.
It is inconceivable as you play different ratings groups for those numbers to be consistently similar, this is a given in a reliable rating system.

Therefore in OTB play we can measure physically with some degree of accuracy how quickly players move. Noting that there are physical limits placed on the human condition.

However in online chess, Speed is not as clear, because of mitigating technical factors.
We can measure speed accurately, but we have to place this information in context of different individual experiences measured against other individual experiences.
At some point however, given that sites can easily collect data on its playing pool, it should become apparent within a 50-100 game cycle what is the norm and what is the standard deviation.

For anybody curious about the state of the games it is worthwhile conducting your own experiments on the playing pool.

@TomBrooklyn said in #11: > How are ratings achieved by very weak players which have no correlation to their actual strength of play? In real OTB the playing strength of a chess player is reflected in their rating, which is a mathematical representation of their playing strength measured as consistency of results against a pool of players. Ratings can be trusted. In online chess, due to numerous technical inconsistencies, there are gaps in skills magnified by different factors. In the context of bullet the two main factors are accuracy and speed. Accuracy is your real strength over a significant number of games. Speed is a technical agility ie a physical attribute. On this criteria alone we ought to realise that certain rating groupings have relatively consistent numbers that reflect both accuracy and speed. It is inconceivable as you play different ratings groups for those numbers to be consistently similar, this is a given in a reliable rating system. Therefore in OTB play we can measure physically with some degree of accuracy how quickly players move. Noting that there are physical limits placed on the human condition. However in online chess, Speed is not as clear, because of mitigating technical factors. We can measure speed accurately, but we have to place this information in context of different individual experiences measured against other individual experiences. At some point however, given that sites can easily collect data on its playing pool, it should become apparent within a 50-100 game cycle what is the norm and what is the standard deviation. For anybody curious about the state of the games it is worthwhile conducting your own experiments on the playing pool.