Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

chess.com ratings are deflated against USCF


  • 3 months ago · Quote · #1061

    AdamRinkleff

    SmyslovFan wrote:

    Now, let's plug in some numbers:

    Rating: 1000 *.93=930+283=1213 (a difference of 213)

    The difference between 1200 and 1213 is a marginal difference of one percent. However, we aren't in agreement about the correct formula. I already told you (three times) that jcbutler used different criteria than me when defining what an "active" or "accurate" rating is.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #1062

    AdamRinkleff

    SmyslovFan wrote:
     If he had said that the ratings were off by about 100-200 points, he would have been right

    Hurray! Smyslov finally admits the truth. Chess.com ratings are deflated, and his personal estimate is a mere 100 points different than mine.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #1063

    johnmusacha

    Huzzah!  

    Good job.

    gg.

    /thread

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #1064

    petrip

    AdamRinkleff wrote:
    SmyslovFan wrote:
     If he had said that the ratings were off by about 100-200 points, he would have been right

    Hurray! Smyslov finally admits the truth. Chess.com ratings are deflated, and his personal estimate is a mere 100 points different than mine.

    Deflated is wrong wors as it assumes lots of thing that are not true:
    - chess.com and uscf were at the same level

    - that chess.com rating shoudl follow uscf ratings

     

    sure chess.com ratings are typically stonger than uscf but then again ratings measure only relative differenes and hence will not ever be nothing more thatn relative measures

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #1065

    SmyslovFan

    Agreed, Petrip. To claim that one rating system is inflated/deflated because it doesn't match another rating system measuring a different population shows a lack of understanding of how ratings work.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #1066

    novelman

    The problem here is not the comparison of USCF to chess.com, but the comparison of blitz to standard time controls. Like-to-like comparisons would be more informative.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #1067

    AdamRinkleff

    novelman wrote:

    Like-to-like comparisons would be more informative.

    Would they? People who play a lot of standard USCF don't typically play standard chess.com.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #1069

    AdamRinkleff

    ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:

    Wait I thought the comparison was against chess.com live blitz. Am I wrong, or did it change to standard along the way?

    No, its against blitz. People play blitz here more than standard.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #1070

    petrip

    novelman wrote:

    The problem here is not the comparison of USCF to chess.com, but the comparison of blitz to standard time controls. Like-to-like comparisons would be more informative.

    Even here they cannot be fully one to one. For starters difference between world champion and a average player is a dash smaller with smaller time limits. So if they woudl equal at 1500 they would differ at 900 and 2100.

    Also they are to a degree separte pools. Not every one playes standard at all. Also someone may be playing standard only as 15 minute games and other as 30 minute games. Creating subpools within the pool

    So rating is 'Means to get a roughly even game' or in OTB means of getting f.ex. swiss tournament split fairly into sections and creating efficient pairing.  And I do not see them failing at that.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #1071

    johnmusacha

    The comparison is USCF standard vs. Chess.com blitz.

    It's obvious, that people aren't paying attention.

    Yet they choose to argue.

    Quite unreasonable.


Back to Top

Post your reply: