chess software

Chess Software

Share and you will find!
Funny name, real passions
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
unflat 21 ( +1 | -1 )
I guess this topic has been discussed here in the past but I didn't find anything yet. My question is:
How do blitz-, OTB- and Correspondence-Ratings correlate? Is there something like a rule of thumbs?

wolstoncroft1 170 ( +1 | -1 )
It differs from player to player. Almost always, beginners and intermediate players will have a condsiderably lower blitz rating compared to log games or CC. Other than that i dont believe that there is any golden rule.

Anand #2 in the world has a blitz rating 50 - 100 points higher than his Classic time control rating, not because he plays stronger chess when playing blitz than when playing long games, but because most others arent on the same par as he is when playing fast, so maybe this shows that top level players tend to have lower blitz elo's compared to classical time control, since Anand is noted as an exception.

Just a small note: I once was playing a 3Day/Move game against an opponent with a high rating ~1900. He had a very good win percentage and very few losses. In our game, I had no chance, he outplayed me, he was rated about 200 points higher than me and it showed.
I one day encountered the same player on the gameknots java blitz applet, playing blitz, I was the better player by far, not even in the same league, he made many tactical mistakes, and showed poor strategiacal thought.
I was astounded that a player could perform on the two different levels, sure,,,it wasnt rated and he could have been tired or whatever, but I really think that without aids(like opening databases, and chess programs) many of the higher rated players on this site would see a sudden plummit in their rating.
How could someone play like a master in CC and then like a 1400 in blitz?
stendhar 149 ( +1 | -1 )
A little history... Before time was mandatory in chess games, high level encounters would last for almost fourteen hours. Morphy when playing Staunton would use about two hours worth of thinking time as opposed to his opponent whom would use three to five time more time for pondering. It became obvious that something had to be done. So not long after in a tournament the chess clock was introduced. As a side note the first type of clocks would ring whenever the time expired, but this was soon taken out as it disturbed the other participants.
And ever since time controls have altered the way people play chess. It's perfectly normal that one's play varies with the time alloted for thinking and playing. Some people are more gifted tactically, some have a strategic depth that takes time to put into play, others are more rounded and these are the ones with more chances of succes overall. For example Anand is withouta doubt the best player in the world at rapid games, 15 minutes thinking time/player. But that doesn't mean that as the time frame extends other players won't get a chance to catch up to his play. Time is just another dimenssion to chess that furthers competition and is meant to create imbalance. If top GMs had sufficient time on their clock, 90% of games would be drawn. Who would that please?
bucklehead 11 ( +1 | -1 )
Staunton and Morphy... ...very famously never played head-to-head, though I understand they met in a consultation game.
ccmcacollister 206 ( +1 | -1 )
I had a big imbalance between my Postal play and my Blitz play. Probably a split of Master vs 1700. Which stands to reason since blitz relies heavily on memory, analysis speed, and especially instincts. And mine were terrible for blitz, having a tendency to liquidate or exchange when possible. Which is not good strategy. Whereas even in regular otb play there is time to rely upon logic rather than instincts. And Postal adds a research element, and minimizes the memory need. You dont have to remember an exact line ... just where to FIND IT ! }8-)
Of course everyones objective quality of play should go up with more time. But as mentioned above, the comparative ability related to other players using the same time control is what determines success and rating in that mode. If a player were rated 2000 in both postal and blitz, it seems incontrovertable that the objective strength of play in the postal game will be higher for that player. Perhaps with moves as good as a 2200-2400 rated otb player might make.
I think it would make an interesting experiment to take a few games each from some 2100 otb players, and a few from some 1850 ish corr players, and review them without knowing which players played which games. See if you can differentiate from the quality and ideas produced ...
Perhaps the point spread would need adjusted a bit, but the basic idea finding corr vs otb games you cannot differentiate, then seeing what the method and ratings were, seems good to me too.
It might not work tho if the strategic ideas and analytical errors vary too widely. In otherwords if the games showing an equal level of analytical/tactical precision between the two forms were to show a still higher strategic quality (probably toward) in the corr game. Then perhaps that would be a give away. But that too would be interesting to know.
alberlie 156 ( +1 | -1 )
must be a crappy postal player who can't get his rating above his blitz rating ;o)

I would assume that you would find games of higher move quality but less good plans from the postal players and the opposite from the otb players.

btw: I read somewhere that for most grandmasters, it's quite easy to see the "best" moves very constantly. The most time in a standart otb game is not spent _finding_ the moves but checking them for any weaknesses.
That shes some interesting light on Anand vs. Topalov, for example. One _could_ argue, that Topalov is a "better" player because with more time, he actually finds better moves (because he is rather medium - compared to other superGMs - in rapid/blitz). Vishy, on the other hand, is an excellent rapid player and one _could_ say, that he makes less use of the additional time of a standard game, because he's just "just-as-good" in regular play.

Of course, one could also claim the opposite because Vishy needs only half the time to find moves of roughly the same quality that Topalov finds with much more time.

BTW2: Morozewich finished Melody Amber with 9,5/11 in the blindfold section. Thats a 3000+ rating in Blindfold rapid!!! I wonder if anyone ever has had a higher rating in any kind of event...

BTW3: Anand just before Amber lost 0-2 to Carlsen, on of those on time :o)) So much for being good finding good moves fast :o))