So I was wondering because the ratings basically show how strong of a player you are relative to other players. So because the ratings are just how you relate to other players doesn't that mean in each time control your rating should be roughly the same? Because regardless of the time control you should always be better than the same % of other players in that control, right? so say you were better than 60% of players in classical shouldn't you have blitz and bullet ratings that also make you better than 60% of players in that time control too? For me this doesn't seem to be the case at all, so I'm wondering if it is the case for other people or if this train of thought is just wrong altogether? If it is wrong why is it wrong?
As I understand it, some are better at bullet or blitz, others at quickplay, others at classical. Not everyone has a quick mind. Pattern recognition and intuition play a larger part in faster time controls. The ability to bluff is also useful at blitz, when calculation is more difficult.
Younger players are often better at blitz. Some specialize in Blitz.
Others prefer deep analyses. Beginners often do badly at quick chess and make blunders.
Others prefer deep analyses. Beginners often do badly at quick chess and make blunders.
Because for instance, bullet is not chess IMO.
It's just tricks and tactics.
Openings that work very well in bullet suck for classical or blitz for example.
That said, it should not be the case that your classical rating is 1800 and your bullet rating is 1200. But 1500/1700 for me would be a normal bullet rating.
And blitz is always somewhat close to classical. But I am talking about 5min+ blitz.
That is what I have seen throughout the years in other players ratings.
It's just tricks and tactics.
Openings that work very well in bullet suck for classical or blitz for example.
That said, it should not be the case that your classical rating is 1800 and your bullet rating is 1200. But 1500/1700 for me would be a normal bullet rating.
And blitz is always somewhat close to classical. But I am talking about 5min+ blitz.
That is what I have seen throughout the years in other players ratings.
#4 C'mon...
- Bullet is chess, just high speed. What you mean is, you don't like it so much.
- That's fine, and explains why you've only played 2 bullet games... and that's what your "normal bullet rating" is 1500-1700. It started for you at the first and has ended up, after TWO games, at the second point.
- Everyone is different and enjoys different things.
Personally, I preferred the old lichess system where the games were not divided up arbitrarily into bullet, blitz and classical... especially when the time controls are so wildly different from the standard ones used.
- Bullet is chess, just high speed. What you mean is, you don't like it so much.
- That's fine, and explains why you've only played 2 bullet games... and that's what your "normal bullet rating" is 1500-1700. It started for you at the first and has ended up, after TWO games, at the second point.
- Everyone is different and enjoys different things.
Personally, I preferred the old lichess system where the games were not divided up arbitrarily into bullet, blitz and classical... especially when the time controls are so wildly different from the standard ones used.
No they should not be the same:
- skills vary, some people are just slow ans will not do well in 5 min game ever
- it is not the same set of people playing on different pools and hence the average strength of the pools is quite different
- skills vary, some people are just slow ans will not do well in 5 min game ever
- it is not the same set of people playing on different pools and hence the average strength of the pools is quite different
As mentioned players will vary in their proficiency at different time controls and different player pools exist for different time controls, creating a larger variance in the player pool strength for a time control. It would be much more likely that a player would differ, sometimes more so, in different time controls.
It makes no sense to have just one rating for everything. Bullet and classical aren't comparable.
I agree. In fact, ideally there would be another category for Quickplay - 8 - 15 minutes, and Classical > 15 minutes.
#5
I love bullet. In fact it's addictive for me and when I feel stressed I tend to play it a lot.
The reason why I say bullet is not chess is because in bullet there is so little time to think that you don't calculate too much. You rely mostly in openings and tactical motifs. And for me, chess is all about calculating.
Guys like Carlsen or so, can indeed see some variations in a couple of seconds. Normal humans like you and me unfortunately have much slower brains, and therefore have to rely almost exclusively on memory. For me relying exclusively on memory takes away the challenging aspect of chess which is calculating
I remember Kramnic also said once that for him bullet was not chess.
Also my bullet rating here is provisory. You should not say it's 1700 when I have only played two games.
I love bullet. In fact it's addictive for me and when I feel stressed I tend to play it a lot.
The reason why I say bullet is not chess is because in bullet there is so little time to think that you don't calculate too much. You rely mostly in openings and tactical motifs. And for me, chess is all about calculating.
Guys like Carlsen or so, can indeed see some variations in a couple of seconds. Normal humans like you and me unfortunately have much slower brains, and therefore have to rely almost exclusively on memory. For me relying exclusively on memory takes away the challenging aspect of chess which is calculating
I remember Kramnic also said once that for him bullet was not chess.
Also my bullet rating here is provisory. You should not say it's 1700 when I have only played two games.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.