I've seen countless posts talking about how your online rating is usually a couple hundred points higher than your OTB physical rating.  This made me wonder, how on earth can we assess our more realistic OTB rating without playing in countless USCF/FIDE tournaments?  Some of us either don't have the time, aren't in convenient locations, or don't want to throw down the extra cash when it could go towards other things, such as more books!

I have shredder 11 at home as my chess engine of choice, and I always find the computer to be far more difficult to beat than human opponents of the same elo.  It made me ponder whether my own chess engine was a more accurate gauge of my true rating.

If my win/loss ration against shredder 11 (set to an elo of say...1500) was 50%/50% over a span of say 10 matches, then I would ponder whether that was more telling than our online ratings.

These questions are, in part, due to the fact that I have always wanted a more true litmus test for gauging personal progress.  I find it difficult to do so against human opponents online through correspondence chess.  Sure, to some extent you certainly can gauge things, but there's also a lot of other variables involved, such as: Has your opponent reached their rating cap yet or are they relatively new to the site and still finding their "rating zone"?  Is my opponent possibly making use of more resources than I am for this match (books, opening explorer, or god forbid a chess engine)?

Has anyone else performed studies against their own chess engines to compare to what their ratings are online?

The ratings from online sites rarely match up exactly to OTB ratings, but I'd say they're usually accurate to within a class. Someone with a 1700 rating on this site would probably be a class B player in OTB games also.

The only real way you can find your accurate OTB rating is to play OTB games. The more games you play against more opponents, the more accurate it will be. That being said, if you rarely or never play OTB events then it shouldn't matter to you what your OTB rating is. If you play 99% of your games online, then just focus on that rating.

In my experience the ratings withing a chess program such as Fritz or Chessmaster are usually the least accurate in relation to USCF or FIDE ratings. Also I don't think the way dumbed-downed chess engines play. I think you'll always get better practice from real live opponents.

Here's a comparison of the current Chess.com and USCF ratings distributions:

Online ratings should be more accurate.  You are playing more games, and even though one may say - you have more time to think about your move, so does your opponent. 

Curious to hear from someone who plays both a lot of OTB and online, to see if their ratings seem to correspond at all. I always wonder what my OTB rating would be but I pretty much play only online. I played someone OTB who said he was rated around 1800 and got thrashed pretty consistently, although I find it harder to recognize simple tactics and such because I'm so used to a 2d board.

I believe chess engine ratings must be more accurate than online ratings. My colleagues father is rated 2200 online, but only 1500 in real life.

Ratings are relative, not absolute, and only accurate within the pool of players they apply to. So your chess.com is an accurate reflection of your performance here and will become more accurate as you play more games. Your rating when playing against a computer will be an accurate reflection of your performance against the computer but the two ratings do not relate to each other in any way.

Interesting comment IndridCold. and very interesting charts.

Of course, no rating is any more 'correct' than any other.  All ratings are relative to the pool of players that you are comparing yourself against.  If Erik added 200 rating points to everyone at Chess.com then the ratings would still be vaild relative to one another, but might be less similar to other ratings awarded by FIDE or national chess organisations like the USCF.

Very interesting charts.  The spike at the higher end of the USCF chart is interesting.  It looks like it occurs right around the 2200 mark and I couldn't help but wonder if the reason for it is that many players strive to achieve the NM title and once the goal is achieved, they figure that they've reached their peak and don't advance much further.  Thoughts?  Flames?

-Roy

i dont agree, im 2025 OTB and only 1650ish at blitz, 1600 ish at long, and 2000ish at quick....if i was 200+ online i would be 2200+ in all these?

gumpty wrote:

i dont agree, im 2025 OTB and only 1650ish at blitz, 1600 ish at long, and 2000ish at quick....if i was 200+ online i would be 2200+ in all these?

With only 31 CC games under your belt, your chess.com rating isn't a very good indicator of your true playing strength.  As you play more games, I would expect your rating, which was 1780 at the time I looked, would gradually rise and end up more in line with your OTB ranking.  That said, to reach a rating that is higher than your OTB rating assumes that you're taking full advantage of the rules available to you and by that I'm referring to opening books, databases etc.  Not everyone does but those that do certainly place higher than they otherwise would.

Folks! Time control also affect ratings! There are grandmaster ratings on a 5 minute game but very poor on 30 minute game and vice versa.

Also, ratings can be accurate if it is always being tracked by "chess authorities" i.e. organizers, FIDE, etc, BECAUSE a beginner cannot ALWAYS be pitted to a master because there are rules! (except during the first round of a swiss sytem open tournament). This mean that a strong beginner cannot always be pitted against a seeded player.

Here in our beloved chess.com and even other web related chess sites, we are always confronted of MYSTERY OPPONENTS who can beat you maybe, and therefore quickly affecting one's rating.

That is why those who has already a high rating DON'T play heartily against a lower rated opponent, maybe because beginners is boring to play against with, or you are afraid that the lower ranking player might be a dark horse that can easily beat you therefore lowering your beloved, carefully achieved rating. Even a draw can be disastrous!

So ratings cannot be that accurate!

Gonnosuke wrote:

gumpty wrote:

i dont agree, im 2025 OTB and only 1650ish at blitz, 1600 ish at long, and 2000ish at quick....if i was 200+ online i would be 2200+ in all these?

With only 31 CC games under your belt, your chess.com rating isn't a very good indicator of your true playing strength.  As you play more games, I would expect your rating, which was 1780 at the time I looked, would gradually rise and end up more in line with your OTB ranking.  That said, to reach a rating that is higher than your OTB rating assumes that you're taking full advantage of the rules available to you and by that I'm referring to opening books, databases etc.  Not everyone does but those that do certainly place higher than they otherwise would.

So thats what im doing wrong hahahahaha. I havnt got a chessbase or pc program and no big openings books hahaha. I think your right though all that does give a player an advantage u dont get in OTB style playing. But overall i still think its a little inflated anway. But who cares unless ur entering OTB games and F.I.D.E. one is recongnized throughout the world wheres your local or country one is only important to the country ur in.And the chess.com one is only important on this site....

ljw5021 wrote:

I believe chess engine ratings must be more accurate than online ratings. My colleagues father is rated 2200 online, but only 1500 in real life.

A difference that large is unusual, from what I've seen. Maybe he chokes when faced with the pressure of a clock and a opponent sitting across the board.

i dont know about the ratings as i have never been rated anywhere in chess but what i do know is that, on this site, i can win most games with opponents ranked lower than me and i have difficulty with opponents who are ranked higher than me. as a relative indicator, i feel that it works pretty well with the exception of the timed out games where i dont think i should get any points when there are no decisive advantages (early moves still) and those games i have lost because i took advantage of a bottle of wine, a few coldies or shots before getting online at home to make some questionable plays (yes i also make questionable plays when i havent been in the sauce but it is less frequently obvious errors and i usually remember the logic i had used). nonetheless ratings or not, thanks for the fun games and great challenges.