Some people are really good at shorter games like bullet but when it comes to classical time formats they do less well. Others, like myself, are the opposite. So, there are three ELOs for any one person.
FIDE tournaments are more likely to be classical time formats.
There's a known equation relating USCF and FIDE, USCF = 180 + 0.94*FIDE.
I know chess.com is constantly adjusting their ELOs. They actually try to avoid matching up FIDE stuff on time formats. That's why the slowest time formats here are not called classical but are called rapid instead, is my theory.
Chess dot com vs FIDE ratings
Sort:
jasonarthurtaylor wrote:
Some people are really good at shorter games like bullet but when it comes to classical time formats they do less well. Others, like myself, are the opposite. So, there are three ELOs for any one person.
FIDE tournaments are more likely to be classical time formats.
There's a known equation relating USCF and FIDE, USCF = 180 + 0.94*FIDE.
I know chess.com is constantly adjusting their ELOs. They actually try to avoid matching up FIDE stuff on time formats. That's why the slowest time formats here are not called classical but are called rapid instead, is my theory.
Thanks for answering. I have to add that I am comparing my chess.com Blitz with my FIDE Blitz. FIDE also has Blitz, but theydon't have bullet. Real pieces will fall down on the ground if you play ۱ min game on real board.
Dec 21, 2023
0
#4
This site is grotesquely over-rated compared to FIDE, but there is no direct conversion factor that applies to all ratings. A player at one end of the rating band might be 300 points over-rated, while a player at the other end of the band might be rated 500 points too high.
Blitz - 300 points= FIDE (IMO). It also depends on the regional strength. Though 1300 is really low imo ( I am myself 1100 lol coz I don't play much). If you play more tournaments you should be able to get to 1500.
Today they updated (increased) FIDE ratings for players rated below 2000. New rating = Old rating + (2000 - old rating) * 0.4 . What do you think? Why did they do this? Now this site's rating is closer to FiDe rating ig
Lit wrote:
Today they updated (increased) FIDE ratings for players rated below 2000. New rating = Old rating + (2000 - old rating) * 0.4 . What do you think? Why did they do this? Now this site's rating is closer to FiDe rating ig
I like it, it makes my rating higher
@7
"Today they updated (increased) FIDE ratings for players rated below 2000. New rating = Old rating + (2000 - old rating) * 0.4" ++ FIDE also raised the rating floor to 1400.
FIDE did this because there was a problem with many underrated people in the lower ratings.
"Now this site's rating is closer to FiDe rating ig"
++ Still chess.com rapid rating = FIDE rapid rating + 100
@11
"It just goes to show how unreliable and arbitrary FIDE ratings are."
++ On the contrary, the FIDE rating is reliable and steady, chess.com is overrated by about 100.
"You have a nice bullet rating"
++ Bullet is another game. FIDE has classical rating, rapid rating, and blitz rating, but no bullet.
@14
That will not happen.
To calibrate chess.com ratings to FIDE ratings everybody would lose rating on chess.com.
Mar 2, 2024
0
#11
Uhohspaghettio1 wrote:
It just goes to show how unreliable and arbitrary FIDE ratings are. Online ratings are undoubtedly a much better indicator of strength. You have a nice bullet rating.
Can't figure out whether this is sarcasm or wishful thinking...
Mar 2, 2024
0
#12
blueemu wrote:
Uhohspaghettio1 wrote:
It just goes to show how unreliable and arbitrary FIDE ratings are. Online ratings are undoubtedly a much better indicator of strength. You have a nice bullet rating.
Can't figure out whether this is sarcasm or wishful thinking...
I don't know either...
@19
Chess.com is still overrated relative to FIDE: about +100 in rapid and +400 in blitz.
@20
"this only applies to the highest levels"
++ No, this applies to all levels if ratings are stabilised.
It falls short for players massively underrated because in the phase of steep progress.
Proof:
Probability of Carlsen beating Player X in rapid on chess.com
= probability of Carslen beating Player X in rapid on FIDE.
Hence
Chess.com rapid rating Carlsen - chess.com rapid rating Player X
= FIDE rapid rating Carlsen - FIDE rapid rating Player X
Hence
Chess.com rapid rating Player X - FIDE rapid rating Player X
= chess.com rapid rating Carlsen - FIDE rapid rating Carlsen
= 100
Also
Chess.com blitz rating player X - FIDE blitz rating player X
= chess.com blitz rating Carlsen - FIDE blitz rating Carlsen
= 400
"either false" ++ No.
"go against the common traditional advice" ++ Yes, when common traditional advice is false.
"studying openings is a complete waste of time" ++ It is. Capablanca said the same.
The opening has no influence on the outcome of a lower level or fast time control game.
What you study does not happen and when it finally happens you will have forgotten.
It is much better to find your own moves on the board than reeling off memorised moves, as at some point you have no more memorised moves and you have to find your own moves on the board anyway.
"make any sort of argument in your favour" ++ I do.
"people are coming here to get good information" ++ I give plenty and for free.
tygxc wrote:
@19
Chess.com is still overrated relative to FIDE: about +100 in rapid and +400 in blitz.
Idk how that works, I'm 1900 online in both blitz and rapid
@24
"chess.com was doing a change to their rating system and it wasn't using the original elo formula" ++ Chess.com uses Glicko-2,
which is an improved version of elo: converges faster but requires more calculations.
"they even have a different formula for lower levels and higher levels" ++ No. elo has 3 different K-factors and assumes the same constant rating deviation RD for all; Glicko-2 calculates a personalised rating deviation RD and K-factor for each player at all times.
"According to you he should be 3192 blitz" ++ Not according to me.
Classical, rapid, blitz, and bullet are different games with differet skills and different ratings.
"Isn't it funny how you don't play blitz"
++ 'I play way too much blitz chess. It rots the brain just as surely as alcohol.' - GM Nigel Short
"making these assertions?" ++ Mathematical assertions
"Capablanca never said that." ++ He did.
'Ninety percent of the book variations have no great value, because either they contain mistakes or they are based on fallacious assumptions; just forget about the openings and spend all that time on the endings.' - Capablanca
Also: 'Memorization of variations could be even worse than playing in a tournament without looking in the books at all.' - Botvinnik
"When the evaluation bar fluctuates wildly over the course of a game, only then do openings not matter." ++ In lower level games and fast time controls the evaluation bar fluctuates wildly.
"What you study does not happen and when it finally happens you will have forgotten."
++ It is true. E.g. a player studies Alekhine's Defense, but all of his opponents play 2 Nc3. When after months some plays 2 e5 the player will have forgotten. E.g. a player studies the Marshall Attack, but all his opponents avoid it with 8 a4 or 8 h3 or 8 d3. When after months one plays 8 c3 the player will have forgotten. Even Caruana admits he often has trouble recalling his own prepared lines.
"It is much better to find your own moves on the board than reeling off memorised moves, as at some point you have no more memorised moves and you have to find your own moves on the board anyway."
++ recommended e.g. by Dorfman.
As a patzer who sucks at chess I was wondering if I am FIDE underrated?
I know chess.com and Fide use different rating calculation methods called Glicko and Elo respectively and that they have different player pools but yet there must be a correlation between the two.
I'm 1900 here and only 1300 FIDE, is this much difference normal? I don't drop below 1800 on chess.com even when I'm tilted and also on my alt account I can sustain 1800 easily. But beating even 1000 Elo rated players in Fide tournaments is never easy for me.