Chess.com Player Rating vs USCF/FIDE
I am sill doing pretty good on the way to establishing my "Standard" chess rating on chess.com and I think the ratings (at least in the same area as my USCF rating) are over-rated on chess.com compared to the USCF. My USCF rating is currently 1767... I hit a USCF peak of 1808 years ago (before the ratings were posted online in 1991).
My last two games were against players who were rated near 1700 and the games were honestly not very difficult. These will become famous last words when I started playing people who are closer to my strength (or stronger)!
I have my challenge setting for live play set to my rating -50 and +200 to narrow the range of ratings I will face. After the game today my chess.com rating is at 1778. That means I will only face someone between 1728 and 1978 for my next game. I still have not needed to wait very long for an opponent to play a 30 minute game against and I am happy with that.
This is my 17th game so I am getting close to having an established chess.com standard rating (I think they actually call it rapid). I think it takes 20 games to establish a rating but I may be wrong... it may be 25.
Anyhow, here are my notes to this game. All the annotations are mine except for the notes given by chess.com's engine. I also ran this thru stockfish in the Fritz GUI for the numerical evaluations. Any of my parenthetical annotations are *after* the engine analysis. My notes outside the parentheses are from before the engine evaluated my game.
I was playing White in a Najdorf (or was it a Scheveningen?) Sicilian where I set up in the English Attack formation. Here is how the chess.com engine summarized the play by both sides:
So, I often did not play the best engine move, but my CAPS score is in the high 90's and that is good. No outright blunders for either side, too! Just two mistakes (look for my parenthetical remarks in the game. The Fritz GUI Evaluation Profile shows that I was never in trouble in the game, too:
Anyhow, here is my annotated game: