ratings are deflated against USCF

  • 9 months ago · Quote · #1041


    I only play slow chess here and I found the ratings of my opponents to be seriously deflated compared to the USCF ratings when I played tournaments in the 1970s.

    The recent point injection into standard ratings was a good move IMO.

  • 9 months ago · Quote · #1042


    @Rrrtttyyyuuuiii How old are you? I know it's a weird question, but if you are young, you are probably underrated in U.S.C.F.

  • 9 months ago · Quote · #1043

    Jion_Wansu ratings are inflated. My blitz rating is over 1500 on, but my uscf rating is 1300

  • 9 months ago · Quote · #1044


    I dont know uscf, but guess its close to fide.

    Blitzrating is very different from longchess. Its like comparing marathon with 100 meters. Usain Bolt might be the fastest man in the world, but he will be backmarker in marathonolympics.

    I am at 1200 blitz and 1428 fide longchess. Why not 1428 or even 1600-1700 blitz? Because I am better at long timecontrols and worse in blitz.

    So, if blitz is 200 above USCF, you probably does better in blitz than in longchess, or your USCF might not be updated to current strenght, because it reflects tournamentresults months ago.

  • 9 months ago · Quote · #1045


    Last time I played a rated game was 6 years ago

  • 9 months ago · Quote · #1046


    Jion_Wansu wrote:

    Last time I played a rated game was 6 years ago

    Ok, then your rating tells something about your strenght back then.

    Last time I played a rated game was on thursday, and this game will influence my rating soon, but not yet, and my fiderating is also reflecting games from the winter of 2014, when I was restarting chesscompeting far below my current strenght, maybe 200-500 points behind.

  • 9 months ago · Quote · #1047


    Because of higher gamefrequensy, and more recent games, my blitz and online rating are more up to date than my fiderating. Its 1200 blitz and 1700 online, which tells that I need much time to think, to play well.

  • 5 months ago · Quote · #1048


    AdamRinkleff, you have a serious attitude problem!

    That being said...using a sample of 10 to draw conclusions about the population is just wrong. Second, the two pools do NOT have the same population, or even nearly the same population. Comparing FIDE with would therefore a big more accurate.

    However, I do agree that`s blitz ratings are much lower than FIDEs and USCFs classical ratings. However, I don't think this statement has any relevance, as you are comparing two completely different things. Yes, apples and oranges.

    Go work on your attitude man! This is going to make your life a lot harder! Cheers.

  • 5 months ago · Quote · #1049


    Did you read every post in this entire thread.  It is imperative you do so, before drawing any conclusions not only about the substantive claims herein, but also of Professor von Rinkleff's "attitude."

  • 5 months ago · Quote · #1050


    I didn't read every post because I have better things to do with my time. And yes, I can draw conclusions from his posts. He has a serious attitude problem. No wonder he has gone into academia! Those who can, do. Those wo can't, teach!

  • 5 months ago · Quote · #1051


    My Game in 10/5, Game in 15/5, and OTB ratings are all roughly the same in the USCF universe.  On this site, I'm "deflated" between 200 to 600 points (including Bullet).

    IMHO, it's largely, b/c engine use is so much easier on this site.

    End of Story.  Just Live With It.

  • 5 months ago · Quote · #1052


    Ooh ah! John musacha!

  • 5 months ago · Quote · #1053


    Aaaaand, we're back.

  • 3 weeks ago · Quote · #1054


    Seems like the blitz ratings are even getting more deflated.  I think they injected points into the standard ratings, but never injected points into the blitz ratings, did they?  I think your rating should reflect your relative strength to other chess players.  It should be on this scale of 600-3000.  It should have this meaning that 600-1000 is a beginner, 1000-1400 is an intermediate, a 1400-1800 is an advanced intermediate, 1800-2200 is getting into expert, and 2200 + is world class.  If the ratings don't reflect that, then I think the rating scale has failed.  It no longer reflects what meaning we attribute to it.  If a 1250 blitz player can beat 90%+ of all human chess players in 10 minute chess, then that rating is too low.

  • 3 weeks ago · Quote · #1055



  • 3 weeks ago · Quote · #1056


    I know it is a little off topic from the thread. But why do people now refer to math as maths (plural). It does not sound right. I hear and read it everywhere.

  • 3 weeks ago · Quote · #1057


    It is short for mathematics and also correct English. Think of physics not physic. Math is more of an Americanism.

  • 3 weeks ago · Quote · #1058


    True, "maths" is correct English. "Math" is correct in America.

  • 3 weeks ago · Quote · #1059


Back to Top

Post your reply: