- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

How do I get better at OTB chess

#1

Hello!

I am around 2300 here and 2200 chess.com yet only 1400 FIDE. Are there any tips higher-rated players would give help people like us?

Hello! I am around 2300 here and 2200 chess.com yet only 1400 FIDE. Are there any tips higher-rated players would give help people like us?
#2

“... Most internet players think that 30 5 is slow, but that is unlikely slow enough to play 'real' chess. You need a game slow enough so that for most of the game you have time to consider all your candidate moves as well as your opponent’s possible replies that at least include his checks, captures, and serious threats, to make sure you can meet all of them. For the average OTB player G/90 is about the fastest, which might be roughly 60 10 online, where there is some delay. But there is no absolute; some people think faster than others and others can play real chess faster because of experience. Many internet players are reluctant to play slower than 30 5 so you might have to settle for that as a 'slow' game." - NM Dan Heisman (2002)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627010008/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman12.pdf

“... Most internet players think that 30 5 is slow, but that is unlikely slow enough to play 'real' chess. You need a game slow enough so that for most of the game you have time to consider all your candidate moves as well as your opponent’s possible replies that at least include his checks, captures, and serious threats, to make sure you can meet all of them. For the average OTB player G/90 is about the fastest, which might be roughly 60 10 online, where there is some delay. But there is no absolute; some people think faster than others and others can play real chess faster because of experience. Many internet players are reluctant to play slower than 30 5 so you might have to settle for that as a 'slow' game." - NM Dan Heisman (2002) https://web.archive.org/web/20140627010008/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman12.pdf
#3

Well, for 2300 here, you should be around 1800 FIDE or so.
So, to increase your rating OTB to your actual rating, you actually have to grind tournaments until your rating catches up with your level.

But thats only for reflect an accurate rating. If you want to actually get better at chess, there is no secret, you have to study.

Well, for 2300 here, you should be around 1800 FIDE or so. So, to increase your rating OTB to your actual rating, you actually have to grind tournaments until your rating catches up with your level. But thats only for reflect an accurate rating. If you want to actually get better at chess, there is no secret, you have to study.
#4

same im over 2000 here yet 1300 fide

same im over 2000 here yet 1300 fide
#5

To claim that a 2300 player on lichess is 1800 FIDE is absurd. There is no data to support the claim that FIDE ratings are minus 500 points.

There are lichess players who have higher OTB ratings than online ratings, and those who have higher online ratings than OTB ratings. The only correlation one can discern from the data is that it's more likely than not that one's online rating is higher than their OTB rating, simply because the competition is mostly layman who don't study, but that is not always the case. And the degree of difference cannot be determined by the data either.

One would think that bullet and blitz chess is inflated due to connection speed and reflexes, but that assumption isn't always correct. There are NM"s and FM's that are 2200 and 2300 OTB, yet are 2150 bullet.
There are IM's that are 2400 OTB, and 2500 bullet, which is only a 100 point difference.

To claim that a 2300 player on lichess is 1800 FIDE is absurd. There is no data to support the claim that FIDE ratings are minus 500 points. There are lichess players who have higher OTB ratings than online ratings, and those who have higher online ratings than OTB ratings. The only correlation one can discern from the data is that it's more likely than not that one's online rating is higher than their OTB rating, simply because the competition is mostly layman who don't study, but that is not always the case. And the degree of difference cannot be determined by the data either. One would think that bullet and blitz chess is inflated due to connection speed and reflexes, but that assumption isn't always correct. There are NM"s and FM's that are 2200 and 2300 OTB, yet are 2150 bullet. There are IM's that are 2400 OTB, and 2500 bullet, which is only a 100 point difference.
#6

@Grumpymantooth got it in one.

There's simply no direct correlation between ratings within one pool and ratings within another. That not only applies to different websites and OTB chess federations, but also different time controls. The most you can say is that stronger players who see more, have a greater depth of chess culture/experience to draw upon, and calculate better/faster, are bound to get higher ratings in whatever group they are currently playing in. Eventually they do, but as a wise person once remarked, "The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong". It just pays to bet that way, in the long run. But ratings do change from day to day, as one wins loses and draws with other players, whose ratings are also in flux. So whatever one's rating may be at any given moment is only a sample from a variable range of one's abilities, within a range of players that itself is variable when broadly compared to other groups of players. And these groups change as people drift in and out, learn and become stronger, stagnate and become weaker.

Chess ratings are based on quantitative, not qualitative analysis. They tell you how successful a player has been, not how he has been successful. They don't tell you whether or not a person knows how to mate with K+B+N v lone K, whether he/she knows of Mitrofanov's deflection, or is familiar with the famous Morphy opera game. Or why it is famous. Ratings are just numbers, and as another wise man once remarked, "numbers add up to nothin'"

@Grumpymantooth got it in one. There's simply no direct correlation between ratings within one pool and ratings within another. That not only applies to different websites and OTB chess federations, but also different time controls. The most you can say is that stronger players who see more, have a greater depth of chess culture/experience to draw upon, and calculate better/faster, are bound to get higher ratings in whatever group they are currently playing in. Eventually they do, but as a wise person once remarked, "The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong". It just pays to bet that way, in the long run. But ratings do change from day to day, as one wins loses and draws with other players, whose ratings are also in flux. So whatever one's rating may be at any given moment is only a sample from a variable range of one's abilities, within a range of players that itself is variable when broadly compared to other groups of players. And these groups change as people drift in and out, learn and become stronger, stagnate and become weaker. Chess ratings are based on quantitative, not qualitative analysis. They tell you how successful a player has been, not how he has been successful. They don't tell you whether or not a person knows how to mate with K+B+N v lone K, whether he/she knows of Mitrofanov's deflection, or is familiar with the famous Morphy opera game. Or why it is famous. Ratings are just numbers, and as another wise man once remarked, "numbers add up to nothin'"
#7

@Alientcp said in #3:

Well, for 2300 here, you should be around 1800 FIDE or so.

It depends on the number of games/tournaments you play. This formula of 2300 Lichess should be 1800 FIDE is wrong (I am 2291 lichess and 1955 FIDE but that's a different story) I have seen many Indian players who are even 2400-2500 on lichess but just 1500-1600 FIDE, in my opinion, its just difficult to increase in India I've also played 2 tournaments in India and both went really bad. I feel India just has really strong players who are underrated.

@Alientcp said in #3: > Well, for 2300 here, you should be around 1800 FIDE or so. It depends on the number of games/tournaments you play. This formula of 2300 Lichess should be 1800 FIDE is wrong (I am 2291 lichess and 1955 FIDE but that's a different story) I have seen many Indian players who are even 2400-2500 on lichess but just 1500-1600 FIDE, in my opinion, its just difficult to increase in India I've also played 2 tournaments in India and both went really bad. I feel India just has really strong players who are underrated.
#8

The question is how good your patternmatching on lichess, which most likely has a 2D board, translates to the 3D board you have in real life. People, who played most of their games/puzzles on a real board, have often a closer gap between their Fide rating and their lichess rating compared to people, who played mostly played online.
I don't know wether this is the case for you, or not.

The question is how good your patternmatching on lichess, which most likely has a 2D board, translates to the 3D board you have in real life. People, who played most of their games/puzzles on a real board, have often a closer gap between their Fide rating and their lichess rating compared to people, who played mostly played online. I don't know wether this is the case for you, or not.
#9

@Grumpymantooth said in #5:

To claim that a 2300 player on lichess is 1800 FIDE is absurd. There is no data to support the claim that FIDE ratings are minus 500 points.

It is not an easy task to achieve 2200-2300 online. Im talking about longer time controls. say 15 minutes or more.
To be able to achieve 2200-2300, you need certain level of knowledge that is not easy to achieve. And 2200-2300 online is more or less the level of a decently strong amateur, you simply cannot reach that level if you dont have the knowledge.

Turns out that decently strong amateurs on Fide ratings are around that level.

@Grumpymantooth said in #5:

There are lichess players who have higher OTB ratings than online ratings, and those who have higher online ratings than OTB ratings.

Of course. But you are not stating the reasons of why that happens.
Online ratings are inflated, the reason is simply because you have a bigger pool of players, you have a bigger pool of novice players that are feeding rating to stronger ones and you have a bigger pool of novice accounts that are leaving the game after a few matches after feeding said rating, but there are less quitting of stronger players who are getting fed from the lower player, thus, inflating the system with rating points. How much is inflated is more complex, but thats another story.

The could be a few reasons why an online player might be higher rated in FIDE. The first one is that he might not play online enough to normalize the rating. The algorithm that sets you up is not always precise, and 1 or 2 games where you might had a mouse slip or so can put you way lower where you belong. You need a bigger pool of games for the algorithm to properly place you.

Other reason is that a good player on FIDE simply stopped playing chess for a long time. Dropped significantly in level (as was my case, though I never got FIDE rated) and came back to play online chess and stopped playing OTB, so the old FIDE rating is still intact. I can bet there are several of those in the site.

In any case, 1800 is a rough estimate. Could be 1765, maybe a bit less, could be 1863, maybe a bit more. But a 2200-2300 is close or is dead center to the strength of a decently strong amateur, which is between 1800-1999 FIDE.

@The_ThreeChecks said in #7:

It depends on the number of games/tournaments you play.

@Alientcp said in #3:

So, to increase your rating OTB to your actual rating, you actually have to grind tournaments until your rating catches up with your level.

Exactly the point. He needs to grind OTB. He obviously has a higher level than what his rating reflects

@The_ThreeChecks said in #7:

This formula of 2300 Lichess should be 1800 FIDE is wrong (I am 2291 lichess and 1955 FIDE but that's a different story)

Which kinda proves the point.

@The_ThreeChecks said in #7:

I have seen many Indian players who are even 2400-2500 on lichess but just 1500-1600 FIDE

Yes, they dont play enough OTB. Depending on where they live, there might not be enough FIDE rated tournaments.
I am unrated, im 41. When I was younger, between 15-28 when I was very active, there used to be only 1 or 2 FIDE rated tournaments a year, and for some reason I never attended. Though there were regular tournaments at least twice a month, which I attended religiously. Cant build up the rating if there are no FIDE rated tournaments, or I dont play in them.

Since they are very strong, but cannot get their ratings up because there are no tournaments or they dont attend, so you are going to get several players who are very strong, but are under rated, which is exactly the point again, 2400 online here is stronger than a 1600 FIDE, 2200~ online here is stronger than 1400 FIDE. The proper level should be around 1800 or so. Maybe a bit less, maybe a bit more, but he shouldnt drift too much from that mark.

There is no chart to indicate precisely where he fits because there are several factors involved. But you can more or less predict where he fits with some decent accuracy. You cannot get to 2200 online without knowledge of the game. You simply cant (without cheating). You need a strong understanding of many things which a novice player will never have. He is way above a novice player else he would have never reached that rating. But he is not a master either. You just have to gauge if he is closer to a novice or to a master. He fits somewhere in between. 1800 Is MY estimate, its not a formula. Its an estimation and I have good reasons to arrive to that number.

@Grumpymantooth said in #5: > To claim that a 2300 player on lichess is 1800 FIDE is absurd. There is no data to support the claim that FIDE ratings are minus 500 points. It is not an easy task to achieve 2200-2300 online. Im talking about longer time controls. say 15 minutes or more. To be able to achieve 2200-2300, you need certain level of knowledge that is not easy to achieve. And 2200-2300 online is more or less the level of a decently strong amateur, you simply cannot reach that level if you dont have the knowledge. Turns out that decently strong amateurs on Fide ratings are around that level. @Grumpymantooth said in #5: > There are lichess players who have higher OTB ratings than online ratings, and those who have higher online ratings than OTB ratings. Of course. But you are not stating the reasons of why that happens. Online ratings are inflated, the reason is simply because you have a bigger pool of players, you have a bigger pool of novice players that are feeding rating to stronger ones and you have a bigger pool of novice accounts that are leaving the game after a few matches after feeding said rating, but there are less quitting of stronger players who are getting fed from the lower player, thus, inflating the system with rating points. How much is inflated is more complex, but thats another story. The could be a few reasons why an online player might be higher rated in FIDE. The first one is that he might not play online enough to normalize the rating. The algorithm that sets you up is not always precise, and 1 or 2 games where you might had a mouse slip or so can put you way lower where you belong. You need a bigger pool of games for the algorithm to properly place you. Other reason is that a good player on FIDE simply stopped playing chess for a long time. Dropped significantly in level (as was my case, though I never got FIDE rated) and came back to play online chess and stopped playing OTB, so the old FIDE rating is still intact. I can bet there are several of those in the site. In any case, 1800 is a rough estimate. Could be 1765, maybe a bit less, could be 1863, maybe a bit more. But a 2200-2300 is close or is dead center to the strength of a decently strong amateur, which is between 1800-1999 FIDE. @The_ThreeChecks said in #7: > It depends on the number of games/tournaments you play. @Alientcp said in #3: > So, to increase your rating OTB to your actual rating, you actually have to grind tournaments until your rating catches up with your level. Exactly the point. He needs to grind OTB. He obviously has a higher level than what his rating reflects @The_ThreeChecks said in #7: > This formula of 2300 Lichess should be 1800 FIDE is wrong (I am 2291 lichess and 1955 FIDE but that's a different story) Which kinda proves the point. @The_ThreeChecks said in #7: > I have seen many Indian players who are even 2400-2500 on lichess but just 1500-1600 FIDE Yes, they dont play enough OTB. Depending on where they live, there might not be enough FIDE rated tournaments. I am unrated, im 41. When I was younger, between 15-28 when I was very active, there used to be only 1 or 2 FIDE rated tournaments a year, and for some reason I never attended. Though there were regular tournaments at least twice a month, which I attended religiously. Cant build up the rating if there are no FIDE rated tournaments, or I dont play in them. Since they are very strong, but cannot get their ratings up because there are no tournaments or they dont attend, so you are going to get several players who are very strong, but are under rated, which is exactly the point again, 2400 online here is stronger than a 1600 FIDE, 2200~ online here is stronger than 1400 FIDE. The proper level should be around 1800 or so. Maybe a bit less, maybe a bit more, but he shouldnt drift too much from that mark. There is no chart to indicate precisely where he fits because there are several factors involved. But you can more or less predict where he fits with some decent accuracy. You cannot get to 2200 online without knowledge of the game. You simply cant (without cheating). You need a strong understanding of many things which a novice player will never have. He is way above a novice player else he would have never reached that rating. But he is not a master either. You just have to gauge if he is closer to a novice or to a master. He fits somewhere in between. 1800 Is MY estimate, its not a formula. Its an estimation and I have good reasons to arrive to that number.
#10

@The_ThreeChecks said in #7:

It depends on the number of games/tournaments you play. This formula of 2300 Lichess should be 1800 FIDE is wrong (I am 2291 lichess and 1955 FIDE but that's a different story) I have seen many Indian players who are even 2400-2500 on lichess but just 1500-1600 FIDE, in my opinion, its just difficult to increase in India I've also played 2 tournaments in India and both went really bad. I feel India just has really strong players who are underrated.

yes u got it right. Theres an insane competition over here. My friend is about 1400-1500 fide yet his highest rating is 2400 lichess. Also in u13 nationals there are over 2200 fide rated CM's!

@The_ThreeChecks said in #7: > It depends on the number of games/tournaments you play. This formula of 2300 Lichess should be 1800 FIDE is wrong (I am 2291 lichess and 1955 FIDE but that's a different story) I have seen many Indian players who are even 2400-2500 on lichess but just 1500-1600 FIDE, in my opinion, its just difficult to increase in India I've also played 2 tournaments in India and both went really bad. I feel India just has really strong players who are underrated. yes u got it right. Theres an insane competition over here. My friend is about 1400-1500 fide yet his highest rating is 2400 lichess. Also in u13 nationals there are over 2200 fide rated CM's!

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.