08 Feb 08
1 edit
I find it strange how huge the difference between correspondece and blitz is here. Sure, people will say blitz is completely irrelevent, but I for one never look up opening databases or anything, and am shocked how many players above 1600 have no idea what to do without them. I can hardly manage to be 1300 on correspondence, but in OTB and blitz I can beat many players up to 1700. Is the margine really so large?
08 Feb 08
Originally posted by clandarkfirewell, if you are telling the truth about your OTB rating then no the margin isn't that big...you are just a stronger player than them.
I find it strange how huge the difference between correspondece and blitz is here. Sure, people will say blitz is completely irrelevent, but I for one never look up opening databases or anything, and am shocked how many players above 1600 have no idea what to do without them. I can hardly manage to be 1300 on correspondence, but in OTB and blitz I can beat many players up to 1700. Is the margine really so large?
08 Feb 08
Originally posted by clandarkfirewell, you kind of said it yourself: the kind of chess you play in 1600 blitz has got you to only 1200 here. it's just way too inaccurate to survive in CC.
I find it strange how huge the difference between correspondece and blitz is here. Sure, people will say blitz is completely irrelevent, but I for one never look up opening databases or anything, and am shocked how many players above 1600 have no idea what to do without them. I can hardly manage to be 1300 on correspondence, but in OTB and blitz I can beat many players up to 1700. Is the margine really so large?
08 Feb 08
Originally posted by clandarkfirethese are two totally different schemes, that's why. In correspondence, 1 e4 is much more common than OTB. So playing 1 c4 may throw correspondence players off. Also correspondence players such as myself are used to having time to look over moves. In otb it is harder to spot long term attacks.
I find it strange how huge the difference between correspondece and blitz is here. Sure, people will say blitz is completely irrelevent, but I for one never look up opening databases or anything, and am shocked how many players above 1600 have no idea what to do without them. I can hardly manage to be 1300 on correspondence, but in OTB and blitz I can beat many players up to 1700. Is the margine really so large?
08 Feb 08
Originally posted by RamnedI have got to question your statistics. I don't think e4 is any more or less common in correspondence than OTB, and I don't think it matters. They salient point is that in correspondence you have exponentially more time than you do OTB. Therefor ill-advised moves which may have a threat to them are less likely to generate the hoped for result in correspondence. Ergo, you need to play more precise chess. The level of your competition is another variable and finally, a 1200 at one place is not necessarily equal to a 1200 somewhere else. Ratings can only be used as a guide of relative strength within their own rating pool.
these are two totally different schemes, that's why. In correspondence, 1 e4 is much more common than OTB. So playing 1 c4 may throw correspondence players off. Also correspondence players such as myself are used to having time to look over moves. In otb it is harder to spot long term attacks.
08 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by clandarkfireNeither blitz nor correspondence chess is "irrelevant". It is a hobby for most of us and as long as you enjoy yourself that's all that matters.
I find it strange how huge the difference between correspondece and blitz is here. Sure, people will say blitz is completely irrelevent, but I for one never look up opening databases or anything, ....
08 Feb 08
Originally posted by clandarkfireA few of strong players use their engines to play correspodence instead themselves. So 1200 player gets to 2000 CC and then 1300 player crushes him in blitz because he do not have time for consultation in blitz. Of course correlation between Blitz chess and CC chess is very loose but not THAT loose that you will be CC expert and Blitz patzer.
I find it strange how huge the difference between correspondece and blitz is here. Sure, people will say blitz is completely irrelevent, but I for one never look up opening databases or anything, and am shocked how many players above 1600 have no idea what to do without them. I can hardly manage to be 1300 on correspondence, but in OTB and blitz I can beat many players up to 1700. Is the margine really so large?
08 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by ivan2908Yeah it is...at one point I was losing to players in the 1000 range at 5min chess when I was 1800 at 30min chess but now I am beating 1700-1900 players.
A few of strong players use their engines to play correspodence instead themselves. So 1200 player gets to 2000 CC and then 1300 player crushes him in blitz because he do not have time for consultation in blitz. Of course correlation between Blitz chess and CC chess is very loose but not THAT loose that you will be CC expert and Blitz patzer.
EDIT: on a different site. chesshere.com to be exact
09 Feb 08
Originally posted by zebanoWhat I mean is, at master play, more masters would play openings other than e4 - less positional. In correspondence, e4 is more common because one cannot play gambits as easily and successfully as in OTB since opponents can figure a refutation more successfully in cc. For example, the Fried Liver attack is excellent (in my opinion) in OTB against the unprepared opponent. But in cc, it is not successful against the unprepared opponent who can analyze and become prepared.
I have got to question your statistics. I don't think e4 is any more or less common in correspondence than OTB, and I don't think it matters. They salient point is that in correspondence you have exponentially more time than you do OTB. Therefor ill-advised moves which may have a threat to them are less likely to generate the hoped for result in correspondenc ...[text shortened]... e else. Ratings can only be used as a guide of relative strength within their own rating pool.
09 Feb 08
Originally posted by RamnedDepending on the strength of play getting "prepared" in-game does not work because the chances are that the side that played the fried liver knows
What I mean is, at master play, more masters would play openings other than e4 - less positional. In correspondence, e4 is more common because one cannot play gambits as easily and successfully as in OTB since opponents can figure a refutation more successfully in cc. For example, the Fried Liver attack is excellent (in my opinion) in OTB against the unprepar ...[text shortened]... in cc, it is not successful against the unprepared opponent who can analyze and become prepared.
the positions that arise in the middle game and endgame much better than the other guy.