Is it possible to study and find something meaningful between the two ratings in a sense.
We have a population of people on chess.com who have both an online(or live) and USCF rating, so it's only natural to ask about the intersection between the two populations since there's a large group of members who exist in both. I think this idea can be extended a bit, since it isn't a terrible assumption that <2000 FIDE=USCF to include some international members into our sample populace as well.
While ratings don't directly reflect a level of chess skill, as was stated, those adults with long-established ratings have an excellent idea what those numbers imply for those like them and serve as a fair predictor for the result of many games vs.many opponents of likewise established status.
Actually, the original post didn't ask how they related. The original poster noted a difference in their ratings and asked if that was correct. There was no need to make a comparison, or to state that Chess.com ratings are inflated (something which is more than technically incorrect). All that was needed was to state that they are different populations and different skill sets, and therefore the ratings are not comparable.
I don't think you can compare online rating with board play. I do both and at the board you have to deal without the analysis/cheat board(you need to visualize/think ahead, try it it is actually pretty hard to think ahead like +4 moves).
Also time stress, stress in general, noise around, concentration and so on influence your strength. I know a few clubmembers with low rating who are actually good on the internet, but they easily get beaten by +1700 club players in real life chess.
The biggest problem imo with online chess it actually force you to think about lots of games the same time(This is hard for visualizing, at least for me it is). When i play one game for +1.30h long i play a lot stronger and don't have to visualize every time a new game.
At least this is my opnion =)
You're just being argumentative now. A comparison was called for and given.
Nice ad hominem, goldendog. I'll have to remember that one.
I didn't attack you. Where in my post do you say I made an ad hominem?
Enjoy playing with statistics. I have no problem with that or you. If you wish to insist on "inflation" as only a term of art for statisticans to define here then you are in the wrong forum perhaps. I and others used the term usefully here, if colloquially, and advanced some understanding of what ratings here mean in terms of relation to USCF otb ratings.
Just relax.
You say I'm just being argumentative, that I'm "playing with statistics", and that I need to relax. Those are all ad hominem arguments. If that's how you argue, I'm not going to argue with you anymore.
Playing with statistics, playing with chess...both ok. You were being argumentative. Take it or leave it it's no big deal.
When you play the Gatekeeper and try to tell me that I should have just answered as you have, re different populations etc., and no more, then you lay yourself open to some rebuttal and perhaps even criticism.
If "just relax" qualifies as an ad hominem for you, then I suggest you are being hyper-sensitive.
thank you for all of your wonderful posts =]
Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.