- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

Is it normal to have a much lower rating for faster time controls?

#3

It's opposite for me starting from blitz
UB- 1395
Bullet- 1623
Blitz- 1727
Rapid - 1633
Classical- 1482
At the time of posting this
( I have played relatively few classical and rapid games, so that's why :P )

It's opposite for me starting from blitz UB- 1395 Bullet- 1623 Blitz- 1727 Rapid - 1633 Classical- 1482 At the time of posting this ( I have played relatively few classical and rapid games, so that's why :P )
#5

"You are better than 50% of rapid players" at 1575
"" of blitz players at 1525
"" of bullet players at 1450
(This is not the same as saying the median rating in rapid/blitz/bullet is 1575/1525/1450, but "median" and "in the numerical center of the field" should be strongly interdependent).
So these differences are a lichess fact, in faster time controls players center around lower average numbers, but I do not understand why, is it necessary or arbitrary?

One idea: Club players might not play a lot of longer time controls, because they have a sufficient amount of these in otb play. Also, fear of meeting cheats makes many stronger players opt for shortest time controls. So therefore, the niveau in longer time controls may be more relaxed, while more and more tense and dense the shorter time controls get.

Another turn this may also have taken: Those who see they score lower in a shorter time control are collevtively unwilling to accept this and, fighting to reach their "real" strength (as displayed by their ratings in slower controls) collectively get stronger, but only ever so slowly in rating, as they mostly take from and give one another.

"You are better than 50% of rapid players" at 1575 "" of blitz players at 1525 "" of bullet players at 1450 (This is not the same as saying the median rating in rapid/blitz/bullet is 1575/1525/1450, but "median" and "in the numerical center of the field" should be strongly interdependent). So these differences are a lichess fact, in faster time controls players center around lower average numbers, but I do not understand why, is it necessary or arbitrary? One idea: Club players might not play a lot of longer time controls, because they have a sufficient amount of these in otb play. Also, fear of meeting cheats makes many stronger players opt for shortest time controls. So therefore, the niveau in longer time controls may be more relaxed, while more and more tense and dense the shorter time controls get. Another turn this may also have taken: Those who see they score lower in a shorter time control are collevtively unwilling to accept this and, fighting to reach their "real" strength (as displayed by their ratings in slower controls) collectively get stronger, but only ever so slowly in rating, as they mostly take from and give one another.
#6

@ungewichtet said in #5:

"You are better than 50% of rapid players" at 1575
"" of blitz players at 1525
"" of bullet players at 1450
(This is not the same as saying the median rating in rapid/blitz/bullet is 1575/1525/1450, but "median" and "in the numerical center of the field" should be strongly interdependent).
So these differences are a lichess fact, in faster time controls players center around lower average numbers, but I do not understand why, is it necessary or arbitrary?

One idea: Club players might not play a lot of longer time controls, because they have a sufficient amount of these in otb play. Also, fear of meeting cheats makes many stronger players opt for shortest time controls. So therefore, the niveau in longer time controls may be more relaxed, while more and more tense and dense the shorter time controls get.

Another turn this may also have taken: Those who see they score lower in a shorter time control are collevtively unwilling to accept this and, fighting to reach their "real" strength (as displayed by their ratings in slower controls) collectively get stronger, but only ever so slowly in rating, as they mostly take from and give one another.

If they're taking and giving from each other, wouldn't they just even out eventually?

@ungewichtet said in #5: > "You are better than 50% of rapid players" at 1575 > "" of blitz players at 1525 > "" of bullet players at 1450 > (This is not the same as saying the median rating in rapid/blitz/bullet is 1575/1525/1450, but "median" and "in the numerical center of the field" should be strongly interdependent). > So these differences are a lichess fact, in faster time controls players center around lower average numbers, but I do not understand why, is it necessary or arbitrary? > > One idea: Club players might not play a lot of longer time controls, because they have a sufficient amount of these in otb play. Also, fear of meeting cheats makes many stronger players opt for shortest time controls. So therefore, the niveau in longer time controls may be more relaxed, while more and more tense and dense the shorter time controls get. > > Another turn this may also have taken: Those who see they score lower in a shorter time control are collevtively unwilling to accept this and, fighting to reach their "real" strength (as displayed by their ratings in slower controls) collectively get stronger, but only ever so slowly in rating, as they mostly take from and give one another. If they're taking and giving from each other, wouldn't they just even out eventually?
#7

@bernkastelhues #6
They are getting better but collectively, so that as quick pairing keeps them playing mostly one another their gain in strength doesn't show as it would were it not a collective phenomenon. But on the upper rim they win and hand down some points from those who don't feel as midjudged and so that grudging collective would slowly snail uphill.

@bernkastelhues #6 They are getting better but collectively, so that as quick pairing keeps them playing mostly one another their gain in strength doesn't show as it would were it not a collective phenomenon. But on the upper rim they win and hand down some points from those who don't feel as midjudged and so that grudging collective would slowly snail uphill.
#8

For me, my lichess classical is 150-200 higher than my rapid, which is 300 higher than my blitz. So similar situation to you. Maybe its because I'm older - I can't process the board quite as fast for blitz.

For me, my lichess classical is 150-200 higher than my rapid, which is 300 higher than my blitz. So similar situation to you. Maybe its because I'm older - I can't process the board quite as fast for blitz.
#9

Seems the general rule to have a higher rating with the longer time controls. It's hard to find examples to the contrary except with GM's at the highest levels.

I can see in the future that the world championships will be played at faster time controls because of the interest level of spectators. I've never played in a classical online tournament and even a rapid tournament is pushing it for many.

At one time chess was played without clocks and was considered boring to most spectators. Now, it's easy to find people watching otb bullet games even if they don't know how to play chess because they get caught up in the energy of the crowd when skilled chess masters are in time trouble.

However, when analyzing these bullet games by GM's they are full of blunders and is not well played chess, albeit fun and interesting to play and watch.

Personally I'm most impressed with a players Chess 960 rating and look forward to the day that the< New Chess > takes over as the standard.

Seems the general rule to have a higher rating with the longer time controls. It's hard to find examples to the contrary except with GM's at the highest levels. I can see in the future that the world championships will be played at faster time controls because of the interest level of spectators. I've never played in a classical online tournament and even a rapid tournament is pushing it for many. At one time chess was played without clocks and was considered boring to most spectators. Now, it's easy to find people watching otb bullet games even if they don't know how to play chess because they get caught up in the energy of the crowd when skilled chess masters are in time trouble. However, when analyzing these bullet games by GM's they are full of blunders and is not well played chess, albeit fun and interesting to play and watch. Personally I'm most impressed with a players Chess 960 rating and look forward to the day that the< New Chess > takes over as the standard.
#10

Chess at different things (whether that thing is time control, web site, puzzles/games) have nothing to do with each other. They never will.

The only purpose of chess ratings is to determine who is likely to win in a particular pool of players.

When a blitz game ends the blitz rating of two people changes. Why does anyone think that has anything to do with any other rating?

Chess at different things (whether that thing is time control, web site, puzzles/games) have nothing to do with each other. They never will. The only purpose of chess ratings is to determine who is likely to win in a particular pool of players. When a blitz game ends the blitz rating of two people changes. Why does anyone think that has anything to do with any other rating?

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