# USCF comparison with chess.com ratings

• 4 years ago · Quote · #41

:) thanks for your comments guys, they are really informative :) so where do you think 1650 blitz equates to?

• 4 years ago · Quote · #42
Pawnpusher3 wrote:

:) thanks for your comments guys, they are really informative :) so where do you think 1650 blitz equates to?

About 1650, give or take 100 points.

• 4 years ago · Quote · #43

Ok cool

• 4 years ago · Quote · #44
DrawMaster wrote:

I did a brief, unofficial comparison in the 1500 to 1700 area some time back. Those results would agree somewhat with gregkurrell's observation above.

For what it's worth, have a look.

Did you do a regression coefficient analysis? That will indicate whether there's a positive correlation between chess.com and UCSF ratings to start with. If you already have the data, it's easy to do and definitely worth doing ... existence (or otherwise) of a positive correlation is absolutely the first thing to find out ...

This site does it for you:

http://www.easycalculation.com/statistics/correlation.php

• 4 years ago · Quote · #45

Well based on the results I have gotten, I noted that chess.com ratings were usually lower than USCF. I don't know exactly whether this would be positive or negative, because when you would graph it, you can have different x axis and y axis choices (c.c ratings and USCF)

• 4 years ago · Quote · #46

I'd put x = UCSF rating (independent variable), and y = chess.com rating (dependent variable).

Use the website I linked to above. If there's a strong positive correlation, then we can draw the least-squares line (also easy), and have an actual formula for converting between ratings.

• 4 years ago · Quote · #47

Sounds great. FIDE is estimated to be about 100 points less than USCF, so people can put those up as well, and I'll convert them

• 4 years ago · Quote · #48

you know there is another factor to it, I know that chess.com doesn't so this but in USCF rated tournaments you do not get to choose who I get paired up woth. In chess.com I kind of do. If I played higher rated in USCF then my rating wouldn't go downs so much but If i played lower rated and lost then my rating owuld shoot down if you do not get what I mean just ask me

• 4 years ago · Quote · #49

It's pretty accurate fo me... I'm a 1370-1450 USCF and a 1350-1430 Chess.com

• 4 years ago · Quote · #50

my fide rating dropped to 1470 for May

• 4 years ago · Quote · #51

Of course that couldn't be figured out exactly since it obviously varies from person to person. I know at least one person on here whose FIDE rating is higher than his Chess.com rating simply because of the number of opponents he plays at once.

• 4 years ago · Quote · #52

Well this isn't always going to be an exact science. If they had a pool, so players could not inflate their ratings, we would be better off. This study would be more accurate and it would have a better comparison

• 4 years ago · Quote · #53

Another thing, I saw a fourm that said something about the thought that some states  have people who are higher rated but are worse then some lower rated people in a lower area becaus ethey play different people. On chess.com  you play everyone in US and worldwide so there really is no rating boost or decrease per state. That might be why we are getting diffeent results for everyone's USCF and chess.com

• 4 years ago · Quote · #54

yes, I think that the playing pool really does effect the results a LOT. as players go to a national level though, It has to become more accurate.

• 4 years ago · Quote · #55

Great thing about chess.com:ratings are not changed by the area

• 4 years ago · Quote · #56

I would say that Chess.com Online (turn-based) is about 200-300 points above USCF OTB.  That is easily the case with me (I'm just under 1500 OTB and just under 1900 Chess.com Online.  For me, some of the difference is due to the style of play -- when I have more time I play better in both a relative and absolute sense.  Likewise, my relative performance goes down when I play blitz.  Hope this helps.

• 4 years ago · Quote · #57

I don't have a USCF rating, but for me there is a big difference between my correspondence (online) rating and my blitz and standard ratings on here. I have been a little over 1900 in my correspondence rating for awhile now, but my standard rating is around 1550 and my blitz rating is only around 1450. I think this is partly because I am a little slower than most players of my strength, but there is a pretty big difference in a lot of other's ratings as well.

I would say that for people that take correspondence chess on chess.com seriously, their USCF rating is usually at least 150 points lower than their chess.com rating.

• 4 years ago · Quote · #58
Mean-Mr-Mustard wrote:

I don't have a USCF rating, but for me there is a big difference between my correspondence (online) rating and my blitz and standard ratings on here. I have been a little over 1900 in my correspondence rating for awhile now, but my standard rating is around 1550 and my blitz rating is only around 1450. I think this is partly because I am a little slower than most players of my strength, but there is a pretty big difference in a lot of other's ratings as well.

I would say that for people that take correspondence chess on chess.com seriously, their USCF rating is usually at least 150 points lower than their chess.com rating.

I agree, my USCF is about 150 points lower than my CC rating on chess.com, yet is 100 points above my blitz rating. I take CC seriously, but don't pay enough attention during blitz games.

• 4 years ago · Quote · #59

Since for many people rated uscf tournaments are both costly and rarely available I would guess that a big difference between ratings here and uscf ratings is the fact that ratings here are much less stable. A player could either drop or raise their rating by 100-200 points within 6 months which is very unlikely to happen with uscf ratings (unless a player is just beginning to play uscf tournaments).

• 4 years ago · Quote · #60

Yes, that's a good point. It's also why one of the requirements was that the rating had to be established