Look up your USCF rating. Write it down. Divide your IQ by your age. Subtract this number from your USCF rating. The resulting number is a.
Look up your Chess.com blitz rating. Add your height in meters. The resulting number is b.
a+b/2 = your true chess strength.
Look up your USCF rating. Write it down. Divide your IQ by your age. Subtract this number from your USCF rating. The resulting number is a.
Look up your Chess.com blitz rating. Add your height in meters. The resulting number is b.
a+b/2 = your true chess strength.
Is this true?
I don't have a USCF rating. Can I use my SAT score instead?
My USCF will be about 1700 -1750 regular after this last tournament I had, and my blitz on here is 1672 at the moment. My standard rating of 1500ish on here is most likely not accurate, as I consistently get thrashed by computer impossible, where many of its losses come from cheaters. I don't really play any other standard games on here.
I don't have a USCF rating. Can I use my SAT score instead?
Yes, but only the sum of your verbal and math scores.
Hi everyone,
This has probably been a forum topic a thousand times, but chess.com do you think that there is a way for chess.com ratings to be converted to unofficial real ratings (like saying someone 1600 online = 1400 real).
Some statistical analysis has been given to answering this question. I suggestion you search the forums.
YEs, and they prsented lots of interesting lying numbers.
I wasn't aware that the numbers were spurious. What evidence is there to this effect?
Well, the attemt is flawed in the first place. You cannot compare 2 different pools of players as well as 2 different time controls.
About like trying to compare basketball players to tennis players.
Also, if the numbers were real, then they would hold true for all players. and work in both directions.
I have a 1200 blitz rating right now. Does that mean I am a 1500+ USCF player? Pretty sure the answer is no.
I said it was flawed. You didn't add anything to what was said. I was giviing information based on who I have looked up, when trying to compare chess.com ratings with USCF ratings. Additionally, I have no idea what you'd be rated in the USCF's classic time control, you'd have to play a couple of tourns. And the ratings conversion may vary with respect to ratings on chess.com's spectrum, e.g., lower rated blitz players (e.g., 1200 and less) on chess.com might be overrated with respect to USCF classic rating, chess.com blitz ratings between 1200 and 2100 might be increasingly underrated compared to USCF classic ratings, and then titled classes might be close in chess.com blitz rating compared to USCF player rating. It is not as you say, "work in both directions" or be universal: there is such a thing as non-linearity.
Look up your USCF rating. Write it down. Divide your IQ by your age. Subtract this number from your USCF rating. The resulting number is a.
Look up your Chess.com blitz rating. Add your height in meters. The resulting number is b.
a+b/2 = your true chess strength.
Is this true?
Yes.
I don't have a USCF rating. Can I use my SAT score instead?
Only pre-1995 SAT scores can be substituted.
As in just Critical Reading + Math sections? Or am I only allowed to use the score if I took the test before 1995?
You can't divide by 0
SilentKnighte5 wrote:
Yes, this is the formula:
(USCF + 192) / (age - 16) * 0 + height in cm = chess.com rating.
thats times 0
A real and more accurate answer is it depends. The higher your c.c rating, the more likely it's lower than your USCF rating and vice versa.
I see, so since I have a low cc rating, I should have a high USCF rating.
I like your thinking.
Sure, why not.
kinda the opposite because cheds.com rating starts at 1200 and official rating starts at 100.
Chess.com to USCF ratings: Take your birthday, divide it by the square root of an irrational number, add your rapid rating to the square of your blitz, heat to 350 degrees Fahrenheit for 45 minutes, mix and add salt and pomegranate
A real and more accurate answer is it depends. The higher your c.c rating, the more likely it's lower than your USCF rating and vice versa.
I see, so since I have a low cc rating, I should have a high USCF rating.
I like your thinking.
Sure, why not.