This topic comes up periodically. Really, a rating is only accurate within a pool of players.
Some people have proposed some correlation between some of the Live ratings and OTB but for a lot of people those aren't accurate/predictive.
But Daily has the least likelihood of any good correlation due to the vastly differing ways people play it.
The Daily ratings are...weird. My rating's usually in the 2000's. But my experience is that players rated in the low 2100's are way out of my reach--many are FMs or even IMs, and I hardly ever beat them; when I do, it seems to be a distraction issue (they are playing too many games at once, essentially giving a simul). It feels like 2000-2100 is a whole class difference. OTB I am rating only 1950 but my chances of beating a 2100 player seem to be quite a bit higher than in Daily.
I've heard various explanations of this, mostly involving cheating, but it's hard to tell without doing some proper statistical analysis.
This topic comes up periodically. Really, a rating is only accurate within a pool of players.
Some people have proposed some correlation between some of the Live ratings and OTB but for a lot of people those aren't accurate/predictive.
But Daily has the least likelihood of any good correlation due to the vastly differing ways people play it.
yup
How accurate/correct is a chess.com player rating concur/compared with an OTB rating? I suspect that the rating in speed chess (Blitz) is more accurate than the rating in daily chess