Answers.Body: <p>Different (though related) skills are involved in standard chess and blitz chess.</p>
  
  <p>The standard rating is the one that really "counts" as far as people's lists of the best chess players goes. So you don't want to contaminate that rating, used for hours-long serious games, with results from 5-minute games. The blitz and rapid ratings were introduced recently so that players' games at those time controls can count for something without affecting their "real" standard rating.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-10-09T15:42:48.223Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-10-09T15:42:48.223Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: dfan
Answers.Body: <p>Take it from me. I am an 1750 ELOist in correspondence games, and a 1150 in blitz. Why would you ask? I am a very slow thinker. The ideas I spew out in blitz aren't as good. There is no time to remember theory, unlike in slow and correspondence chess.(You can check it if you forgot it in the latter) There are other players, such as Nakamura, that are much better in blitz and bullet rather than in slower chess. I can think of some in my chess club too!</p>
  
  <p>In the end, rating is but a number. Have fun!</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-10-09T15:47:14.827Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-10-09T15:47:14.827Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: MikhailTal
Answers.Body: <p>Of course not! Blitz game and standard time game are two different games...</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>Wouldn't it be more easy and efficiento to measure the global stranght
    of a player to have only one rating?</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>This is not much of a problem to divide ratings in those 3 categories. It's not people who calculate it, it's not a problem for a computer/system to do so. And 3 different ratings give you more clear picture of strength of given player at given 'mode'.</p>
  
  <p>Of course there are people who play similarily well blitz or classic (so they have 3 similar ratings) BUT on the other hand I know people that their ratings differ significantly. Once upon a time there was a GM on my team rated above 2500 FIDE who couldn't* play blitz games. He was losing to average players 2000-2100 every tournament. Those were times when we all had one rating. And I think there is no point for this guy to be 2500 in blitz tournaments when he loses 2nd or 3rd round in some random Open. And there are also players who play agressively and unclearly, tacticans. They know surprising variations which are obviously incorrect but...they have great successes in blitz games. So they are rated higher in this mode. I find this solution perfect!</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-10-09T18:46:23.853Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-10-09T18:46:23.853Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Pijotrek
Body: <p>The FIDE assigns a player not one but three different ratings:</p>
  
  <ol>
  <li>For classical games featuring long time controls, that is, 90 minutes for the first 40 moves + 30 minutes for the rest of the game + 30 seconds increment from move one, the players have a <em>standard rating</em>.</li>
  <li>For games played with a time control of 15 minutes + 10 seconds increment, the players have a <em>rapid rating</em>.</li>
  <li>For games played with a time control of 3 minutes + 2 seconds increment, the players have a <em>blitz rating</em>.</li>
  </ol>
  
  <p>A similar method for rating players is also implemented by many websites like <a href="http://www.chess.com/" rel="nofollow">Chess.com</a> and the <a href="http://www.chessclub.com/" rel="nofollow">ICC</a>. Why is this done? Wouldn't it be easier and more efficient to measure the global strength of a player to have only one rating?</p>
  
  <p><em>This question is based on one that was being closed because of being unclear what it was asking.</em></p>
  
Tags: <rating><elo><fide>
Title: Why the ratings used for different time controls are different?
ThreadText: # Why the ratings used for different time controls are different?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2014-10-09)
  
  The FIDE assigns a player not one but three different ratings:
  
  1. For classical games featuring long time controls, that is, 90 minutes for the first 40 moves + 30 minutes for the rest of the game + 30 seconds increment from move one, the players have a *standard rating*.
  2. For games played with a time control of 15 minutes + 10 seconds increment, the players have a *rapid rating*.
  3. For games played with a time control of 3 minutes + 2 seconds increment, the players have a *blitz rating*.
  
  A similar method for rating players is also implemented by many websites like [Chess.com](http://www.chess.com/) and the [ICC](http://www.chessclub.com/). Why is this done? Wouldn't it be easier and more efficient to measure the global strength of a player to have only one rating?
  
  *This question is based on one that was being closed because of being unclear what it was asking.*
  
  **Tags:** rating, elo, fide
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 3 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2014-10-09. Score: 6
  
  Different (though related) skills are involved in standard chess and blitz chess.
  
  The standard rating is the one that really "counts" as far as people's lists of the best chess players goes. So you don't want to contaminate that rating, used for hours-long serious games, with results from 5-minute games. The blitz and rapid ratings were introduced recently so that players' games at those time controls can count for something without affecting their "real" standard rating.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2014-10-09. Score: 2
  
  Take it from me. I am an 1750 ELOist in correspondence games, and a 1150 in blitz. Why would you ask? I am a very slow thinker. The ideas I spew out in blitz aren't as good. There is no time to remember theory, unlike in slow and correspondence chess.(You can check it if you forgot it in the latter) There are other players, such as Nakamura, that are much better in blitz and bullet rather than in slower chess. I can think of some in my chess club too!
  
  In the end, rating is but a number. Have fun!
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2014-10-09. Score: 0
  
  Of course not! Blitz game and standard time game are two different games...
  
  > Wouldn't it be more easy and efficiento to measure the global stranght
  > of a player to have only one rating?
  
  This is not much of a problem to divide ratings in those 3 categories. It's not people who calculate it, it's not a problem for a computer/system to do so. And 3 different ratings give you more clear picture of strength of given player at given 'mode'.
  
  Of course there are people who play similarily well blitz or classic (so they have 3 similar ratings) BUT on the other hand I know people that their ratings differ significantly. Once upon a time there was a GM on my team rated above 2500 FIDE who couldn't\* play blitz games. He was losing to average players 2000-2100 every tournament. Those were times when we all had one rating. And I think there is no point for this guy to be 2500 in blitz tournaments when he loses 2nd or 3rd round in some random Open. And there are also players who play agressively and unclearly, tacticans. They know surprising variations which are obviously incorrect but...they have great successes in blitz games. So they are rated higher in this mode. I find this solution perfect!
  
  
  ---
  
  