Nobody cares about USCF ratings. Factly, all national ratings should be promptly dismissed- there is no point keeping a rating system other than FIDE's when information exchange is so simple in the year 2013.
agreed ........
Nobody cares about USCF ratings. Factly, all national ratings should be promptly dismissed- there is no point keeping a rating system other than FIDE's when information exchange is so simple in the year 2013.
agreed ........
Nobody cares about USCF ratings. Factly, all national ratings should be promptly dismissed- there is no point keeping a rating system other than FIDE's when information exchange is so simple in the year 2013.
i dont think it works as easy as that, considering that european players play more international players.
Probably not, but that's only because he doesn't have enough 2800+ opponents to get him up there in a practical time. Even if he has the skill for it I don't see it happening. He might get near or exceed 2900 though.
If we have a some more rating inflation...then perhaps. But being 200 rating points above everyone else looks impossible.
And if we took rating inflation in consideration, it s very likely to turn out Carlsen's 2870 in 2013 is worth less than Kasparov's 2851 in 1990s.
+1
And my answer is nope.
Two things, Random:
A. That is a USCF rating, not a FIDE rating, which is what the conversation was about
B. It's a provisional rating.
Actually, no it was about elo as stated in the thread title. Not any particular international or national organization. Elo is the rating system, not the organization; so whoever said "the discussion was about FIDE" was wrong. They just didn't want to give the man his due because it was a USCF provisional rating. That's cool though. Just don't tell me the discussion was about FIDE when it was about Elo. Or you can start a thread about 3000 Elo in FIDE only if that's what you want, but the man already broke 3000 in USCF, didn't he?
Correct me if you're wrong.
Exactly.
So next conversation should be about if you think he can do it with a 3000 FIDE rating instead of just Elo in general, because that is NOT what this thread had written in its title.
strictly speaking you are right, but then a lot of people are breaking 3000 elo barrier of ICC or chesscube or playchess etc. ..... generally 3000 elo is taken to mean 3000 FIDE.
also USCF uses glicko system which is not entirely the elo system but slightly different.
strictly speaking you are right, but then a lot of people are breaking 3000 elo barrier of ICC or chesscube or playchess etc. ..... generally 3000 elo is taken to mean 3000 FIDE.
also USCF uses glicko system which is not entirely the elo system but slightly different.
I had forgotten USCF uses glicko instead of elo. Thank you for the correction and I am man enough to admit when I make a mistake after being shown the light, so apologies to anyone whom I may have offended in the earlier post.
strictly speaking you are right, but then a lot of people are breaking 3000 elo barrier of ICC or chesscube or playchess etc. ..... generally 3000 elo is taken to mean 3000 FIDE.
also USCF uses glicko system which is not entirely the elo system but slightly different.
I had forgotten USCF uses glicko instead of elo. Thank you for the correction and I am man enough to admit when I make a mistake after being shown the light, so apologies to anyone whom I may have offended in the earlier post.
In your defence,
" The current rating system as implemented by the USCF is still an Elo rating system, but with a sliding K-factor."
(wikipedia)
He did it.
No he didn't ........ though he did get a provisional 3000+ USCF rating as a result of his performance at St. loius tournament !
That's the 3000 elo rating I was talking about. It wasn't just a "performance" rating, but an actual provisional rating, correct?
Many people cross 3000 on different internet servers as well, what matters is the FIDE ratings .....