<Comment deleted by user>
Besides the pool argument, there is the calculation vs intuition.
@nonEsiste
Your speed rating is about 21% less than your classical rating. My discrepancy is more that 25% less. I can't tell you why your rating is lower but if it's anything like me, it's because you suck.
Seriously though, I think there are two big factors:
Playing chess well is not easy and playing it fast is considerably harder. It seems to take a *lot* of playing to become familiarized with common calculation patterns - to reduce the time needed to think. Even a computer takes a lot longer if the position is unfamiliar.
It also takes training/experience to stay relaxed in the face of any conflict. Chess is a fight so it's a challenge to stay relaxed and focused without letting emotions distort your choices. Time pressure will obviously make that harder but material loss can impact your mindset too. What's the old saying? The quickest way to turn a black belt into a blue belt is to punch him in the nose. It's important to stay calm and focused after taking damage.
Your speed rating is about 21% less than your classical rating. My discrepancy is more that 25% less. I can't tell you why your rating is lower but if it's anything like me, it's because you suck.
Seriously though, I think there are two big factors:
Playing chess well is not easy and playing it fast is considerably harder. It seems to take a *lot* of playing to become familiarized with common calculation patterns - to reduce the time needed to think. Even a computer takes a lot longer if the position is unfamiliar.
It also takes training/experience to stay relaxed in the face of any conflict. Chess is a fight so it's a challenge to stay relaxed and focused without letting emotions distort your choices. Time pressure will obviously make that harder but material loss can impact your mindset too. What's the old saying? The quickest way to turn a black belt into a blue belt is to punch him in the nose. It's important to stay calm and focused after taking damage.
The general rating pool for classical sucks. People play it like blitz so if you simply take your time you will appear better than you are. If you were to play a 1900 from the lonewolf/team leagues youd notice the difference.
HI @nonEsiste. I answered a similiar question recently in this forum link, but I'll add more here too: lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/1800-classical-1800-bullet-1500-blitz#5
I have thought about blitz vs classical quite a bit recently, in my own evolution. I've observed that people play blitz much more like a bullet game, than a classical one: quick, immediate, good-enough, shallow moves, at the denial of deeper and richer tactical possibilities or correctness. I cannot tell you how many times I've had a massive advantage in a blitz game, only to lose on time. I'm trying to concoct a winning and fulfilling tactical brilliancy, while my opponent is just randomly trading pieces as fast as possible. It has been so clearly consistent my opponent and I have totally different interpretations of the time control (I may take over 1 minute per move in blitz, which i still not that long compared to classical).
The discussion is about blitz, but note that when I switched from playing 2+1 bullet to 1+0 bullet, my bullet rating jumped up 200 points. Essentially the only reason for this was my interpretation of the time; I knew with no increment, I'd have to instantly play moves with no live time opportunity for deeper thought. I suspect a similar dynamic applies to blitz; I simply need to play more congruent with what the time control actually is.
It has been a year since my focus was on blitz rating improvement and I switched aggressively to tactics instead. I still want to convert my vastly improved tactical ability to be reflected in my blitz rating. I'm accustomed to savoring a single position for perhaps several minutes to gain full awareness of its dynamics. Contrast such a premise against the absurdity of a bullet game! You are deeply contemplating the optimal move (which you can do better than 95% of the players), playing against a know-nothing lunatic hyena randomly making moves as fast as possible and claiming they won cause they had 1 second more on the clock. These 2 approaches are incomparable, even though they both use chessboards and chess pieces. I would suggest that in many ways, blitz is just as nonsensical -- "I made the incorrect moves faster than you did!"
To fit into the microscopic time window, your quality of play will naturally need to diminish dramatically. The question I've struggled with is: is that satisfying or fun? It reminds me of writing 2 different essays for school -- one quick one during an exam, compared to one long one you have a month to write at home. They're both essays, technically, but one was created with distinctly far greater quality and pride.
I'm very interested to hear if the perspective I share there is similar to your experience, so let me know!
I have thought about blitz vs classical quite a bit recently, in my own evolution. I've observed that people play blitz much more like a bullet game, than a classical one: quick, immediate, good-enough, shallow moves, at the denial of deeper and richer tactical possibilities or correctness. I cannot tell you how many times I've had a massive advantage in a blitz game, only to lose on time. I'm trying to concoct a winning and fulfilling tactical brilliancy, while my opponent is just randomly trading pieces as fast as possible. It has been so clearly consistent my opponent and I have totally different interpretations of the time control (I may take over 1 minute per move in blitz, which i still not that long compared to classical).
The discussion is about blitz, but note that when I switched from playing 2+1 bullet to 1+0 bullet, my bullet rating jumped up 200 points. Essentially the only reason for this was my interpretation of the time; I knew with no increment, I'd have to instantly play moves with no live time opportunity for deeper thought. I suspect a similar dynamic applies to blitz; I simply need to play more congruent with what the time control actually is.
It has been a year since my focus was on blitz rating improvement and I switched aggressively to tactics instead. I still want to convert my vastly improved tactical ability to be reflected in my blitz rating. I'm accustomed to savoring a single position for perhaps several minutes to gain full awareness of its dynamics. Contrast such a premise against the absurdity of a bullet game! You are deeply contemplating the optimal move (which you can do better than 95% of the players), playing against a know-nothing lunatic hyena randomly making moves as fast as possible and claiming they won cause they had 1 second more on the clock. These 2 approaches are incomparable, even though they both use chessboards and chess pieces. I would suggest that in many ways, blitz is just as nonsensical -- "I made the incorrect moves faster than you did!"
To fit into the microscopic time window, your quality of play will naturally need to diminish dramatically. The question I've struggled with is: is that satisfying or fun? It reminds me of writing 2 different essays for school -- one quick one during an exam, compared to one long one you have a month to write at home. They're both essays, technically, but one was created with distinctly far greater quality and pride.
I'm very interested to hear if the perspective I share there is similar to your experience, so let me know!
<Comment deleted by user>
i reek at blitz... never even tried bullet....but i accept that i reek at blitz...when i play blitz, i don't mind losing on time --- much. i'll just let it run out, if i'm low on time. i guess other people are more into the competitive aspect of blitz --- i'm just not..
when i practice tactics, i do it slowly and methodically --- i don't think it would be much fun for me to do a ton of tactics and miss a bunch, which is what my blitz-playing colleague does.......... my brain seems to work better slowly and ...hopefully deeply (lol)
@nonEsiste my rating discrepancy is about equal to yours... i just accept it. i know a couple strong blitz players who lament that they're not as good at classical as they are at blitz... conversely, i know only one guy who's ALMOST as bad at blitz as i am, and who's a strong player. it seems like a lot of players are good at both, but i'd guess there's a faction who are not.
@Walkingman93 i've only played a handful of classical games here...... but it does seem like people play me tough, but along the way they'll make a terrible oversight.. maybe they are used to blitzing, whereas i try to NEVER make quick moves... so, yup, maybe my rating in classical is inflated.....i may have to move to another site because there's more interest here in variants and blitz...
when i practice tactics, i do it slowly and methodically --- i don't think it would be much fun for me to do a ton of tactics and miss a bunch, which is what my blitz-playing colleague does.......... my brain seems to work better slowly and ...hopefully deeply (lol)
@nonEsiste my rating discrepancy is about equal to yours... i just accept it. i know a couple strong blitz players who lament that they're not as good at classical as they are at blitz... conversely, i know only one guy who's ALMOST as bad at blitz as i am, and who's a strong player. it seems like a lot of players are good at both, but i'd guess there's a faction who are not.
@Walkingman93 i've only played a handful of classical games here...... but it does seem like people play me tough, but along the way they'll make a terrible oversight.. maybe they are used to blitzing, whereas i try to NEVER make quick moves... so, yup, maybe my rating in classical is inflated.....i may have to move to another site because there's more interest here in variants and blitz...
Agree with the statement by @Walkingman93 about
" People play it like blitz "
Honestly, classical is so slow so I want the games to end quicker.
I also noticed that people let their times run out a lot more in classical, so playing faster saves your precious time.
" People play it like blitz "
Honestly, classical is so slow so I want the games to end quicker.
I also noticed that people let their times run out a lot more in classical, so playing faster saves your precious time.
I feel classical 15+15 is a much better timecontrol. Gives more time to think, find plans, calculate and etc. You will also remember more of the games, so it has to be better for learning.
When it comes to the rating it seems to be two very different pools. As the topicstarter mention, the percentile doesn`t make sense.
I am 1602 in blitz here and better than 60 % or so. On Chess. com I am 1405 in blitz and better than 80 % or so. I think the blitz field at this site is strong and more even.
When it comes to the rating it seems to be two very different pools. As the topicstarter mention, the percentile doesn`t make sense.
I am 1602 in blitz here and better than 60 % or so. On Chess. com I am 1405 in blitz and better than 80 % or so. I think the blitz field at this site is strong and more even.
<Comment deleted by user>
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.