I play almost 100 percent 5 minute; if I go shorter or longer it is difficult to win a game. I get beat by more patient players in the long games and probably much younger players in the short ones.
RAPID: usually do RAPID for my class but for me it's to much time.
BLITZ:not much time but fun usually do 5 min so I just be calm.
BLITZ:not much time but fun usually do 5 min so I just be calm.
@mkubecek said in #4:
> Not likely, the design of the rating algorithm makes sure the mean value should be always close to 1500 and when you check the rating distribution graphs, they look very similar for rapid and blitz. And there is no reasonable way to compare pool strength for different time controls. A difference on player's side, i.e. being stronger in rapid than blitz (relatively to the pool) is IMHO more plausible explanation.
There definitely is an effect of stronger player pool in Blitz, which makes that you're worse relative to the average Blitz player than to the average rapid player. So it's normal for you're Blitz rating to be lower than the rapid rating. According to www.chessratingcomparison.com, the mean difference is about 150 points. If the difference is larger for you, then you might say that you are better at rapid than at blitz. (In my case, the difference is about 300 points, which basically shows that I suck at blitz.)
> Not likely, the design of the rating algorithm makes sure the mean value should be always close to 1500 and when you check the rating distribution graphs, they look very similar for rapid and blitz. And there is no reasonable way to compare pool strength for different time controls. A difference on player's side, i.e. being stronger in rapid than blitz (relatively to the pool) is IMHO more plausible explanation.
There definitely is an effect of stronger player pool in Blitz, which makes that you're worse relative to the average Blitz player than to the average rapid player. So it's normal for you're Blitz rating to be lower than the rapid rating. According to www.chessratingcomparison.com, the mean difference is about 150 points. If the difference is larger for you, then you might say that you are better at rapid than at blitz. (In my case, the difference is about 300 points, which basically shows that I suck at blitz.)
@gammarus said in #13:
> There definitely is an effect of stronger player pool in Blitz, which makes that you're worse relative to the average Blitz player than to the average rapid player. So it's normal for you're Blitz rating to be lower than the rapid rating. According to www.chessratingcomparison.com, the mean difference is about 150 points.
This would be correct conclusion if both pools had similar size. But on lichess, there are way more users who prefer blitz than those who prefer rapid, therefore it is expected that on average, players playing both have better blitz rating than rapid. But it does not mean the blitz pool is objectively stronger, it's rather a result of it being bigger.
> There definitely is an effect of stronger player pool in Blitz, which makes that you're worse relative to the average Blitz player than to the average rapid player. So it's normal for you're Blitz rating to be lower than the rapid rating. According to www.chessratingcomparison.com, the mean difference is about 150 points.
This would be correct conclusion if both pools had similar size. But on lichess, there are way more users who prefer blitz than those who prefer rapid, therefore it is expected that on average, players playing both have better blitz rating than rapid. But it does not mean the blitz pool is objectively stronger, it's rather a result of it being bigger.
<Comment deleted by user>
Hello
You mean a larger playing pool means more weak players, so any given player's rating relative to the mean should be higher? This sounds plausible, but the data (see the link to chessratingscomparisons above) don't seem to support this. I think the main effect is that weak players (and beginners) tend to play slow time controls, whereas strong players play fast ones (look up the profiles of the top players: they play almost exclusively blitz and bullet, among other things to avoid cheating).
An effect a larger pool containing more weak players is probably at work when comparing lichess (smaller and more "elitist") to chess.com (larger and the natural first site for beginners). In Blitz I am "better than ~50% of players" on lichess (rating in the 1500s), whereas on chess.com, I'm currently better than 75% of players, and that's even though I don't take blitz games there serious and currently have an abysmal rating of 966.
An effect a larger pool containing more weak players is probably at work when comparing lichess (smaller and more "elitist") to chess.com (larger and the natural first site for beginners). In Blitz I am "better than ~50% of players" on lichess (rating in the 1500s), whereas on chess.com, I'm currently better than 75% of players, and that's even though I don't take blitz games there serious and currently have an abysmal rating of 966.
What I want to say is that taking averages over unbalanced samples like these is going to produce misleading results. Actually, I don't even think the question if the blitz pool is stronger than rapid pool has a meaningful answer at all, just as the question if a particular player is better at blitz than at rapid. You can compare the rating or the percentile but neither does really answer the original question. And I have to admit I have no idea how one would actually decide if a player is better in blitz or in rapid without the method being fundamentally flawed.
All I can say is that my rapid games - including those that I won - make me feel way more ashamed than my classical games. But then, the results are not that much worse so... who knows? Does it even make sense to try to compare if I'm better in one or in the other? Probably not.
All I can say is that my rapid games - including those that I won - make me feel way more ashamed than my classical games. But then, the results are not that much worse so... who knows? Does it even make sense to try to compare if I'm better in one or in the other? Probably not.
I think blitz has stronger pool, my rating in blitz also lower. And what is more shocking is that bots rating in classical and rapid are also higher than in blitz, which doesn't make any sense, since bots take the same amount of time to think, but players think longer, which should mean that bots in classical should have lower rating than in blitz, which is not the case.
As far as I'm concerned, it's very easy to identify why I'm doing poorly in blitz play.
In this format I make blunders and mistakes in industrial quantities, so there's no doubt that I'm much weaker than in the rapid or classical format, it doesn't depend on the pool. The reason is simply that the fast game suits me less.
In this format I make blunders and mistakes in industrial quantities, so there's no doubt that I'm much weaker than in the rapid or classical format, it doesn't depend on the pool. The reason is simply that the fast game suits me less.