Sure, 10 minutes online and multiple hours OTB are very different games. It's hard to estimate one based on the other.
Daily is also not a good estimate online cause a lot of the elonis based on how many games you play more so than blitz chess
I actually have seen 2000 fida be 2300 daily meanwhile some nms are only 2000-2200 in blitz chess
A local guy I've played is 1600-1700 OTB, and 1900-2000 on chess.com rapid.
Looking at OPs games, I'd guess that's about right.
I'm guessing that if we picked random teams 100 each of Chess.com 2300 bullet and FIDE 1650 classical ratings and made them play a classical controls match, the 1650s would win, maybe quite easily. Surely that's what counts. Not bullet or 3 mins blitz when moving fast is all that counts.
A local guy I've played is 1600-1700 OTB, and 1900-2000 on chess.com rapid.
Looking at OPs games, I'd guess that's about right.
I'm guessing that if we picked random teams 100 each of Chess.com 2300 bullet and FIDE 1650 classical ratings and made them play a classical controls match, the 1650s would win, maybe quite easily. Surely that's what counts. Not bullet or 3 mins blitz when moving fast is all that counts.
Moving fast isn't exactly everything you can still think every ten seconds in blitz chess bullet maybe it is mouse speed but you can't just hang all your peices more accurately pattern recognition is what counts in blitz and the right tempi or speed of moves
Bullet and blitz isn't just speed
Bullet is speed and keeping peices on the board basically if you make your opponent think you win
But keep in mind it speed isn't the only thing that counts a 1000 that plays faster than a 2000 would still get adopted almost every time
meh.. I'd feel like they'd probably be around 1400 to 1600 FIDE
meh.. I'd feel like they'd probably be around 1400 to 1600 FIDE
Look at my bullet ELO. Would you believe me if I said I'm actually over 1600 FIDE? If you play bullet, that doesn't mean you only play it. But if the people in question were to be players who only played bullet for the last months and no analysis or other time controls, you would probably be absolutely right. It depends....
1950 chess.com rapid is about 1900 FIDE rapid.
I'm sorry, but there is no way that is accurate. I'm 1850 rapid, 1900 peak, and there is absolutely no way I'm even close to 1900 fide. My fide is 1480, but my actual fide rating is probably a tad bit higher because I don't play over the board that much.
Someone else said it's about 1812, but this is likely pretty inaccurate too. The only 1900 rated person I've seen with around 1900 ish fide rating was like an old guy who hadn't played otb in decades. I don't know, I may be wrong, but try and find a 1950 ish rated active player with a fide rating of 1800+. Probably not a lot out there.
1950 rapid is probably around 1650-1700 ish fide for someone who regularly plays fide rated events.
I'm 73, 5 years ago I was playing well, not sure what my FIDE rating would have been because we had ECF. Around 1900 - 1950 though and I was still playing otb regularly. Started again with otb, only played one game rated and my opponent wasn't a strong player. Maybe only 1450 FIDE but I wiped him out with black and three weeks ago won a small 15 mins Swiss including beating 3 1800 + FIDE people. I would guess that I'm playing at around 1800 FIDE or maybe 1850 but my blitz rating here is still hovering around 1600, a lot less than it used to be. I'm hesitant about playing rapid because if I lost the first game I'd probably lose 250 points. It's a completely ridiculous system, Glicko. Very inaccurate and volatile.
I didn't test it extensively, just one person's game archive, but a few years ago I re-rated somone's chess.com games using Elo to see how it compared, and the ratings were nearly the same.
In any case, if Glicko were "more volatile" then your online rating would be both higher (at its peaks) and lower (at its valleys).
And FWIW, for players who play often, Glicko is less volatile (the RD of very active players makes rating changes smaller). The fact that rating changes are higher for new accounts is a useful feature, not something that indicates inaccuracy. The faster you can move new accounts to their correct rating, the less inflation / deflation will exist in your system.
That isn't what "more volatile" means. Volatility is more like the tendency to abrupt change. What you're describing is the natural effect of wins and losses being credited and debited more, producing a more extended rating range.
The weakness of Glicko lies not in the continual or regular games but in a complete over-reaction to a period of not playing. One could be playing elsewhere so there should be no need to assume that they've had a layoff. It really is nonsense.
I didn't test it extensively, just one person's game archive, but a few years ago I re-rated somone's chess.com games using Elo to see how it compared, and the ratings were nearly the same.
In any case, if Glicko were "more volatile" then your online rating would be both higher (at its peaks) and lower (at its valleys).
And FWIW, for players who play often, Glicko is less volatile (the RD of very active players makes rating changes smaller). The fact that rating changes are higher for new accounts is a useful feature, not something that indicates inaccuracy. The faster you can move new accounts to their correct rating, the less inflation / deflation will exist in your system.
That isn't what "more volatile" means. Volatility is more like the tendency to abrupt change. What you're describing is the natural effect of wins and losses being credited and debited more, producing a more extended rating range.
The weakness of Glicko lies not in the continual or regular games but in a complete over-reaction to a period of not playing. One could be playing elsewhere so there shoulf be no need to assume that they've had a layoff. It really is nonsense.
Nope, that is what volatility means in this context. Volatility means how much or "far" the data varies from it's average.
No. If you think that's so, can you please give a link to some kind of scholarly article?
For instance, volatility on the stock market on in precious metals' prices does not refer to a range of prices but a tendency towards abrupt change due to apparently small impetus to cause it. An example is that up to about a couple of years ago, a tiny change in the gold price would trigger a big change in silver. Gold could change from 1500 to 1550, a change of 3% and trigger a change in silver from 15 to 18, which is a change of 20%. However, the price range of gold is 1550 and the price range of silver is 18 or whatever. Silver would be referred to as more volatile than gold.
It's a direct comparison: between gold prices and rating variation. They both refer to values. Therefore unless you can find evidence of a special case involving chess ratings, you should accept that I'm right. I think it's a simple misunderstanding that you've made. That's all. Nothing to be upset about.
So volatility isn't "how far" but how fast. You forgot the time factor entirely.
No. If you think that's so, can you please give a link to some kind of scholarly article?
For instance, volatility on the stock market on in precious metals' prices does not refer to a range of prices but a tendency towards abrupt change due to apparently small impetus to cause it. An example is that up to about a couple of years ago, a tiny change in the gold price would trigger a big change in silver. Gold could change from 1500 to 1550, a change of 3% and trigger a change in silver from 15 to 18, which is a change of 20%. However, the price range of gold is 1550 and the price range of silver is 18 or whatever. Silver would be referred to as more volatile than gold.
It's a direct comparison: between gold prices and rating variation. They both refer to values. Therefore unless you can find evidence of a special case involving chess ratings, you should accept that I'm right. I think it's a simple misunderstanding that you've made. That's all. Nothing to be upset about.
So volatility isn't "how far" but how fast. You forgot the time factor entirely.
You're explaining exactly what I defined. 3 is a greater change compared to 15 than 50 is to 1500.
No. If you think that's so, can you please give a link to some kind of scholarly article?
For instance, volatility on the stock market on in precious metals' prices does not refer to a range of prices but a tendency towards abrupt change due to apparently small impetus to cause it. An example is that up to about a couple of years ago, a tiny change in the gold price would trigger a big change in silver. Gold could change from 1500 to 1550, a change of 3% and trigger a change in silver from 15 to 18, which is a change of 20%. However, the price range of gold is 1550 and the price range of silver is 18 or whatever. Silver would be referred to as more volatile than gold.
It's a direct comparison: between gold prices and rating variation. They both refer to values. Therefore unless you can find evidence of a special case involving chess ratings, you should accept that I'm right. I think it's a simple misunderstanding that you've made. That's all. Nothing to be upset about.
So volatility isn't "how far" but how fast. You forgot the time factor entirely.
You're explaining exactly what I defined. 3 is a greater change compared to 15 than 50 is to 1500.
Sorry, you referred to "how far", which isn't a proportion. Stop trying to win discussions on false pretences. "How far" isn't a percentage. 
No. If you think that's so, can you please give a link to some kind of scholarly article?
For instance, volatility on the stock market on in precious metals' prices does not refer to a range of prices but a tendency towards abrupt change due to apparently small impetus to cause it. An example is that up to about a couple of years ago, a tiny change in the gold price would trigger a big change in silver. Gold could change from 1500 to 1550, a change of 3% and trigger a change in silver from 15 to 18, which is a change of 20%. However, the price range of gold is 1550 and the price range of silver is 18 or whatever. Silver would be referred to as more volatile than gold.
It's a direct comparison: between gold prices and rating variation. They both refer to values. Therefore unless you can find evidence of a special case involving chess ratings, you should accept that I'm right. I think it's a simple misunderstanding that you've made. That's all. Nothing to be upset about.
So volatility isn't "how far" but how fast. You forgot the time factor entirely.
You're explaining exactly what I defined. 3 is a greater change compared to 15 than 50 is to 1500.
Sorry, you referred to "how far", which isn't a proportion. Stop trying to win discussions on false pretences. "How far" isn't a percentage.
Stop trying to win a discussion? I'm not trying to win. If you stopped and used your brain for a second you'd realize how volatility would look when graphed.
online chess ratings and fide ratings are not comparable, there are ton of people who are 1900+ online, and havent played a single official otb game, and if they did, they'd probably would not do too well, online chess and otb chess are completely different games, yes you see pros who play each other have high ratings and there are some gap between their otb and online ratings, but that is just an illusion, cause they mostly play eachother online and otb anyway, otb 1900 and and 2000 online only player is completely different and online player has no chance
No. If you think that's so, can you please give a link to some kind of scholarly article?
For instance, volatility on the stock market on in precious metals' prices does not refer to a range of prices but a tendency towards abrupt change due to apparently small impetus to cause it. An example is that up to about a couple of years ago, a tiny change in the gold price would trigger a big change in silver. Gold could change from 1500 to 1550, a change of 3% and trigger a change in silver from 15 to 18, which is a change of 20%. However, the price range of gold is 1550 and the price range of silver is 18 or whatever. Silver would be referred to as more volatile than gold.
It's a direct comparison: between gold prices and rating variation. They both refer to values. Therefore unless you can find evidence of a special case involving chess ratings, you should accept that I'm right. I think it's a simple misunderstanding that you've made. That's all. Nothing to be upset about.
So volatility isn't "how far" but how fast. You forgot the time factor entirely.
You're explaining exactly what I defined. 3 is a greater change compared to 15 than 50 is to 1500.
Sorry, you referred to "how far", which isn't a proportion. Stop trying to win discussions on false pretences. "How far" isn't a percentage.
Stop trying to win a discussion? I'm not trying to win. If you stopped and used your brain for a second you'd realize how volatility would look when graphed.
I think you should be here to try to learn. It would do you more good. Bye.
No. If you think that's so, can you please give a link to some kind of scholarly article?
For instance, volatility on the stock market on in precious metals' prices does not refer to a range of prices but a tendency towards abrupt change due to apparently small impetus to cause it. An example is that up to about a couple of years ago, a tiny change in the gold price would trigger a big change in silver. Gold could change from 1500 to 1550, a change of 3% and trigger a change in silver from 15 to 18, which is a change of 20%. However, the price range of gold is 1550 and the price range of silver is 18 or whatever. Silver would be referred to as more volatile than gold.
It's a direct comparison: between gold prices and rating variation. They both refer to values. Therefore unless you can find evidence of a special case involving chess ratings, you should accept that I'm right. I think it's a simple misunderstanding that you've made. That's all. Nothing to be upset about.
So volatility isn't "how far" but how fast. You forgot the time factor entirely.
You're explaining exactly what I defined. 3 is a greater change compared to 15 than 50 is to 1500.
Sorry, you referred to "how far", which isn't a proportion. Stop trying to win discussions on false pretences. "How far" isn't a percentage.
Stop trying to win a discussion? I'm not trying to win. If you stopped and used your brain for a second you'd realize how volatility would look when graphed.
I think you should be here to try to learn. It would do you more good. Bye.
Or maybe you should tone down the ego and admit to yourself that you don't know what the eff you're talking about.
online chess ratings and fide ratings are not comparable, there are ton of people who are 1900+ online, and havent played a single official otb game, and if they did, they'd probably would not do too well, online chess and otb chess are completely different games, yes you see pros who play each other have high ratings and there are some gap between their otb and online ratings, but that is just an illusion, cause they mostly play eachother online and otb anyway, otb 1900 and and 2000 online only player is completely different and online player has no chance
That was my experience when I played online and otb and I faced someone who had hardly player otb before. Big disadvantage. Some of them were even scared by the personal contact.
No. If you think that's so, can you please give a link to some kind of scholarly article?
For instance, volatility on the stock market on in precious metals' prices does not refer to a range of prices but a tendency towards abrupt change due to apparently small impetus to cause it. An example is that up to about a couple of years ago, a tiny change in the gold price would trigger a big change in silver. Gold could change from 1500 to 1550, a change of 3% and trigger a change in silver from 15 to 18, which is a change of 20%. However, the price range of gold is 1550 and the price range of silver is 18 or whatever. Silver would be referred to as more volatile than gold.
It's a direct comparison: between gold prices and rating variation. They both refer to values. Therefore unless you can find evidence of a special case involving chess ratings, you should accept that I'm right. I think it's a simple misunderstanding that you've made. That's all. Nothing to be upset about.
So volatility isn't "how far" but how fast. You forgot the time factor entirely.
You're explaining exactly what I defined. 3 is a greater change compared to 15 than 50 is to 1500.
Sorry, you referred to "how far", which isn't a proportion. Stop trying to win discussions on false pretences. "How far" isn't a percentage.
Stop trying to win a discussion? I'm not trying to win. If you stopped and used your brain for a second you'd realize how volatility would look when graphed.
I think you should be here to try to learn. It would do you more good. Bye.
Or maybe you should tone down the ego and admit to yourself that you don't know what the eff you're talking about.
To answer the ops question is .... It depends how good you are at irl chess there isn't a specific number most 1950s are and even if there eis there would be a lot of variables
No. If you think that's so, can you please give a link to some kind of scholarly article?
For instance, volatility on the stock market on in precious metals' prices does not refer to a range of prices but a tendency towards abrupt change due to apparently small impetus to cause it. An example is that up to about a couple of years ago, a tiny change in the gold price would trigger a big change in silver. Gold could change from 1500 to 1550, a change of 3% and trigger a change in silver from 15 to 18, which is a change of 20%. However, the price range of gold is 1550 and the price range of silver is 18 or whatever. Silver would be referred to as more volatile than gold.
It's a direct comparison: between gold prices and rating variation. They both refer to values. Therefore unless you can find evidence of a special case involving chess ratings, you should accept that I'm right. I think it's a simple misunderstanding that you've made. That's all. Nothing to be upset about.
So volatility isn't "how far" but how fast. You forgot the time factor entirely.
You're explaining exactly what I defined. 3 is a greater change compared to 15 than 50 is to 1500.
Sorry, you referred to "how far", which isn't a proportion. Stop trying to win discussions on false pretences. "How far" isn't a percentage.
Stop trying to win a discussion? I'm not trying to win. If you stopped and used your brain for a second you'd realize how volatility would look when graphed.
I think you should be here to try to learn. It would do you more good. Bye.
Or maybe you should tone down the ego and admit to yourself that you don't know what the eff you're talking about.
Oh you don't know what ego is now? But you're the one with the ego problems. I know I'm right about the meaning of "volatility" and I also know that you aren't trying to make a proper argument. Just trolling, in fact. Personal attacks. Pathetic.
A local guy I've played is 1600-1700 OTB, and 1900-2000 on chess.com rapid.
Looking at OPs games, I'd guess that's about right.
He probably doesn't play a lot OTB, and passes most of its chess time on chess.com. Also, as commonly acknowledged, there is surely more tension during an OTB tournament than when playing online, especially if you're not used to it.