There's no conversion for ICC to USCF, most people have rating within 200 points, but some are higher and some are lower. For example GM have ratings in the 3000, but you're right that others will have a higher USCF rating.
Live ratings are a bit inflated here compared to ICC, and turn based even more so (lets say between 50-300 points), but by how much just depends.
Okay, thanks. I'm just trying to figure out what my USCF and/or FIDE ratings would be if I'm about 1200 here.
...but at that point it's only really valid for comparisons to other chess.com ratings.
When is it ever really comparable to other ratings except on a case by case basis?
Unfortunately from the one tournament I've ever gone to, I'd have to say that USCF 900-1000 players are ~1200 players here, though I was decidedly drunk for most of it, and I let a kid draw with me by stalemate when up a rook and a bishop because I thought his mother might beat him if he lost.
Yeah, people here start at 1200. I am rated 1200 or so here...not exactly, but I float around that point.
Yeah, I'm usually in on anything involving math because I have half a leg to stand on.
I did do a few half-hearted statistical plots probably 2 years ago on USCF v. chess.com with a smallish sample size and I couldn't find much conclusive. I think I'd figured out that you have to either do multiple formulas for certain bands, or actually remember any of the math you've learned in school.
I like to think that right now my rating is ~300 higher than I could expect with regular USCF play.
The Live Chess ratings tend to be fairly close to the OTB ratings. The turn-based ratings are often inflated and unreliable for various reasons. This includes the fact that some people are able / willing to devote much more time and effort to turn-based chess than others while both are playing on the same time control, the fact that some people only play a few games at a time while others play hundreds, timing out, the use of legal and not-so-legal auxiliary devices and so on.
"Ratings-schmatings" - just play and have fun. Thats what I say.
Maybe there is a statistically significant sample size of games one needs to play before thier rating is valid? Once we have that, would be good to get a statistically significant sample size of people who meet the above criteria for thier ratings and come up with a more objective mapping between ratings. Any statistics students to undertake the project :-)
...but at that point it's only really valid for comparisons to other chess.com ratings.
When is it ever really comparable to other ratings except on a case by case basis?
Unfortunately from the one tournament I've ever gone to, I'd have to say that USCF 900-1000 players are ~1200 players here, though I was decidedly drunk for most of it, and I let a kid draw with me by stalemate when up a rook and a bishop because I thought his mother might beat him if he lost.
By far the most hilarious comment ever written!! (which is a sad thing too)
But anyways, my 5-minute blitz rating on here is about 1650, whereas my ICC ratings range around 1450. My OTB chess.com rating is about 1300 (though it's a little low from abandoning 30+ games due to inactivty) and my USFC rating is about 1100(haven't played in a few years, though I've surely gotten stronger since)
Just wanted to give some data, peace!
There is no definite answer. They all revolve around similar values give or take 200 points.
it really depends! and then again, you have to consider time controls... you cant compare your 5 minute blitz rating to your classical time control rating OTB. that said i have seen many players in live chess with a deflated rating, compared to their FIDE. especially a few NM's and FM's
How does the rating on chess.com compare to say, USCF, ICC, or FIDE ratings?
For instance, a USCF rating is usually higher than one's ICC. Let's say your ICC rating is like 1500, your USCF rating is probably about 1600 if I remember how those compare correctly.