Bullet VS Classical Rating

@Achja and Dunnoitall

Thank you for your insights, makes a lot of sense :) I will be sure to remember them .

I'm good at any time control, except blitz... =/

I'm equally bad at all time controls and variants.

Heck, I'm bad at all chess.

People play bullet for the thrill, and play Classical for the improvement. I don't really think rating in each of these as much relevance with each other. Classical is for people who can actually play strong chess, while bullet is for people who have better instincts and are better at controlling a mouse. While I can see how playing classical games can improve your bullet, playing bullet games will not improve your classical skills.

Bullet is not chess forme

@AM-Veriitas

Thanks for the positive feedback.

I was actually studying this today. There's a pretty good correlation between blitz and classical rating (r=0.66) but almost no correlation between bullet and classical. Here's a graph of 121 players' bullet vs. classical rating:

It's almost random. That suggests that playing bullet is a skill separate from playing chess in general.

@parrotz

Please, never think of becoming a statistician.

People who like to play bullet play mostly bullet and just a tiny amount of blitz and no classical.

People who like to play blitz play some bullet, mostly blitz, and some classical.

People who like to play classical play no bullet, some blitz, and mostly classical.

So the statistic you pulled up has no point.

@BurnedBeef

My sample only included players who had a significant number of games in both bullet and classical (n>=50). For this population, people seem to like playing both.

So your rude response has no point.