For the longest time I have found that no one has an exact comparison between USCF and chess.com ratings. I also found that it would be impossible to find an exact number because the rating systems are totally different. I still am interested in finding a good comparison though. If you have played over 50 games OTB and have an accurate rating, could you please post it here along with your chess.com rating. I think this will provide for a pretty interesting study and discussion

Anyone reading this?

There are too many factors to be able to figure that out.  For example, most of my OTB games are from at least 10 years ago.  Also, I play much better chess at 3 days per move, when I'm not sitting a board stressing about it.  Will you compare standard chess?  Blitz chess?  Bullet chess?  How about 960?  You would need to define some very specific parameters for this to have any meaning.  Good luck.

Thanks for your response Zirtoc! Im glad to see that someone was interested :). Well I guess I would like this compared to the rating category of standard or blitz chess (whichever has more games played). Generally standard would be the most accurate, but I have seen far fewer standard players than blitz players. I guess that I would also like that your rating has been updated recently (within the last year) and that you have an established rating with atleast 50 games. 

I'm 1852 USCF and currently about 1575 here.

You just can't compare the two.  It's like comparing apples and oranges.  They are two different things.  Playing in a slow, otb tourney is an entirely different matter than playing in a speed chess game online.

Well, the only reason I created this forum is to see if there is any correlation. If your standard is more accurate than your blitz, feel free to post that. 

Does anyone think they have any correlation?

In a USCF rated game, both players are usually taking the game seriously.  In chess.com one player may be making moves while watching TV and his opponent may be playing seriously.  You just can't put much stock in on-line ratings.

So does this mean chess ratings are under rated here?

No, it means you don't know.  My USCF rating is around 1600, but my rating here is 1920.  I've played a lot more chess.com games because there just isn't much chess happening where I live.  Plus, I can play 15 games at the same time here.  As to blake's point, I've played opponents who have more than 600 games going.  There's no way they are playing up to their potential.

Well based on what you just said tho it sounds like your USCF isn't that accurate. Although that is just a guess from me

I agree with you.  But I'm not sure I'm a 1900 player either, because like blake said, my opponents might not always be taking the game too seriously.

Well it's hard to assess where you are without many games. You very well could be a 1900 too

I'm 1465 USCF and 1532 on chess.com turn-based, and both ratings are too high 

I guess we need to make this comparable for one specific category, so I say we use blitz, because that is where the most games are played generally

I'm going to make a list of ratings with it formatted so it has 3 columns: USCF, blitz, and difference

Do you all think that's the best way to organize this?

Nope.  You will have to be VERY specific to get anything useful.  I've played a total of 268 games.  26 of them are blitz.  I haven't played any blitz games in the last 90 days.  I've played one bullet game by mistake, because I meant to click on a different game.  I won that game, and I am undefeated in bullet.  ;)  You see the problem...

my blitz is 1844 and my uscf is 101. 

apart from the differences noted above, I believe they use the glicko (spelling?) rating equation.

Next question: correlate the ratings to USCF and USCF to my Danish federation rating and how that all compares to ELO! Of course, one could say: don't bother, it's not meaningful.