It seems that people who don't play OTB or very seriously for that matter. Play on chess.com - think about it.. It is very easy accessed chess.
chess.com rating versus uscf rating
Sort:
There is a little bit of inflation from early out of time wins. However think of the chess.com rating as being closer to USCF correspondence chess. OTB games tend to play out differrently than they might play out here because of the time limit. Plus sitting in one spot for 3 to 5 hours can affect your game in OTB play as well.
I think the online ratings are very inflated, but the live chess ratings logically should not be too different.
USCF (OTB): 1655 (although I suspect I am stronger than this. I drew an 1800 player and beat a 1700 player in my last tournament)
Long: 1708
Blitz: 1704
Quick: 1688
Online Chess: Havent played enough games for an accurate rating.
Pretty close for me, atleast in live chess
1568 here; 1197 USCF. I hope it because I've gotten much stronger since I last played in a otb tournament many years ago. I feel my understanding is much deeper but I suspect a little rating inflation round these parts
Jan 15, 2009
0
#7
I'm an active USCF player, and have played USCF correspondence. I've also played at many online sites--blitz and correspondence. My rating here for turn-based games (online rating) is inflated relative to my rating at comparable sites, but my Chess.com rating is not my highest in this class. My live chess ratings at Chess.com are lower than comparable ratings at Playchess FICS and similar sites.
Chess.com is still relatively new--roughly two years old if I am not mistaken. As more players join, and more games are played, the ratings probably will adjust down or up, as the case my be.
Jan 15, 2009
0
#8
chess.com vs. USCF = Apples vs. Oranges Two different bases, two different results.
There is no reason why the ratings should correspond at all.
Perhaps it would have been better to start everybody with a rating of 33324, multiplying all rating changes by some other random amount, to make that more obvious.
Jan 15, 2009
0
#10
Scarblac wrote:
There is no reason why the ratings should correspond at all.
Perhaps it would have been better to start everybody with a rating of 33324, multiplying all rating changes by some other random amount, to make that more obvious.
Given that Arpad Elo's system was based on an average of 1500, there should be some similarity to other sites and OTB ratings. On the other hand, each rating pool is a closed system, so ratings will vary, often substantially. Moreover, the same players play differently in different arenas.
The comparison is more like oranges and grapefruit rather than apples and oranges. A player lacking understanding of center control and elmentary checkmates, but with a rating over 2000, would reveal either that the site is using neither Elo's rating system nor the improved Glicko rating formula. Or, it could reveal that the pool of players in that group is particularly weak. Or, that something is wrong in the implementation of the system. The inflation here is not that severe.
I suspect that the slight "inflation" in the online ratings here reflects the preponderance of relatively weak players, and a paucity of experinced correspondence players. But, because Chess.com is already high quality, is improving, and has an aggressive advertising campaign, strong players will gravitate here over time. They will knock some of us with inflated ratings back to our customary levels.
Is it just me or are your chess.com ratings much higher than your uscf ratings? My chess.com rating is almost 500 points stronger than my uscf rating. I'm starting to think chess.com ratings are very inflated.