Hey could somebody enlighten me about the relationship between the real chess ratings and the ratings taking place on this site?

I know the algorithms used here are slightly different from those used at FIDE, but could we anyway find a bond between them? I've noticed that the level of play of people who has 1500 and less is a little bit lower than mine in general (and that is related to relatively poor understanting of opening theory in most cases, like myself), and in the other hand, players that have a real rating exposed in their homepages have lower chess.com rating. The relationship seems to be of 10 to 15% less than in real life.

Is there any logic on this? Can I find my supposed place in the real world by translating my rating to a supposed FIDE counterpart? 

Thanks 

The thing you need to understand about ratings of any sort is that they're a tool for comparing the playing strength of players within the same group. FIDE ratings are used to compare the playing strength of two people who both having FIDE ratings. Chess.com ratings are used to compare the playing strength of two people who both have chess.com ratings. Even if the playing conditions were similar enough to make a comparison between FIDE and chess.com ratings make any sense (which they aren't), such a comparison still couldn't be made because the ratings are based on different pools of players.

 

 In other words, give it up. FIDE and chess.com ratings can't be compared to each other.

 

--Fromper 

Thanks a lot, it makes sense!

Juan is rated 1500 on Chess.com. He likes to simulate a real-life game, so he limits himself to 30-90s per move and doesn't use an analysis board.

 

María is rated 1500 on Chess.com. This is her only regular outlet for chess, so she spends 30 minutes on each move and uses an analysis board.

Which player is better? Would they hold the same FIDE rating?

Well, I don't think that they compare at all. Here at chess.com, I see most people play multipule games. I some times forget what I am doning, or think I was doing something that I wa doing in another game. So, some times I make errors that cost me games. Also, I think playing on a flat screen is harder then playing in real life. I say just do your best and have fun.

It would be interesting to do a survey where the Chess.com users with FIDE ratings submit their FIDE rating and their online Chess.com rating so that some calibration of the two ratings could be made.

MattHelfst wrote: It would be interesting to do a survey where the Chess.com users with FIDE ratings submit their FIDE rating and their online Chess.com rating so that some calibration of the two ratings could be made.

---

Something like that has been done on FICS (freechess.org) with FIDE, USCF, and several other tournament rating systems from other countries. There's really no corrolation. There are people with the same FICS rating whose USCF ratings are 400 points apart. There are people with the same USCF ratings whose FICS ratings are 400 points apart. Things like choice of opponents, choice of color to play, how often people play online vs OTB tournaments, how seriously each player takes their games in tournaments vs online, etc all make any sort of comparision irrelevant.

 

And that's on a site where you're only playing one game at a time at time controls that are similar to OTB tournaments (or usually a little faster). Here, you're playing multiple games at a time at much, much slower time controls than in tournaments, so the playing conditions are even less similar to tournaments.

 

 --Fromper

if u did compare them, i think 10%-15% is a little low

likesforest comment is a very good point

My rating is 300 points higher than where I should be.  I got lucky against 2 better players before losing my first game.  I'm about to dive 200 points, but my fantasy of having an 1800 was fun while it lasted.  My bet is that Chess.com ratings are 20-30% higher than actual USCF or Fide ratings in the middle to upper middle range, perhaps 10 percent lower at the highest levels and the same on the low end.  So if someone was actually a master player, their ranking on here would  = 2000, even though they would be 2200 in real life.  likewise if someone was a 900 player on here, in real life they're probably around a 1000.

 I agree that it would be very hard to correlate.  . 

No matter what the system, there will be complaints.  Among USCF I heard postulated at one point that Midwest players had a somewhat lower ratings than people on the East Coast.  The difference was supposed to be that the two populations did not interact much and there were fewer people with big ratings/just plain fewer people in the Midwest, so the number of points being shuffled around were fewer in the Midwest.  Supposedly, when an East Coast person "in the know" ran across a midwesterner in a tournament, the midwesterner would benefit from vague concerns of the easterner.  Just an urban legend.

 

One practical concern over our local ratings I have is that everybody starts at 1200, regardless of ability.  The guy could have a well-deserved USCF 2000 and be destined for great things at chess.com, but as far as the rating goes you are playing a 1200 guy, right?  That's some hit!  Oh well.  Play the board, not the rating.  Remember that we are playing for the beauty of the game first and foremost. 

 

 

Good question and good posts.  One thing is for certain, even tho' the players at chess.com play at a slower rate, it is sometimes difficult to get your mind around the next move because you are usually playing multiple games.  It's still fun even if my wife is always telling me to GET OFF THE COMPUTER!!!

Hahahahah, I liked the last post! Thanks for all the feedback through time!

The formula for for converting the ratings are

Pi /2=C-15%+R                    LOL 

I don't want to burst anyone's bubble, but the fact of the matter is that the majority of people here are simply not good enough to realistically have a FIDE rating.

fischer wrote: I don't want to burst anyone's bubble, but the fact of the matter is that the majority of people here are simply not good enough to realistically have a FIDE rating.

---

 agreed!  i'd assume over60% of the people on here are just playing for fun and do not do competitions that are not on screen