I just take live chess seriously. I dont have enough time to focus completely on my various online games. That being said i do play the best moves i can see. I just dont spend time analyzing the bajeebus out of a standard game.
Chess.com standard ratings v fide/uscf/bcf ratings
Sort:
I would say that while they give similar projections, your FIDE or USCF rating is gives a better idea as to how strong you are, as many of those games have far longer time control and give more time to calculate, look at the postition and imbalances, etc.. Also, I might be the only one, but I calculate MUCH more accuratly over-the-board
I know that many people play better over the board but many FM's who have played hundreds of standard games struggle to reach an 1800 chess.com. In your opinion, are the ratings severly deflated or are these masters just playing extremely poorly online?
Based on my (somewhat limited) standard experience on chess.com, I have noticed that the ratings for standard are all over the place. As a 1700 rated player on chess.com and an 1850 rated uscf player, I have noticed that the abilities vary quite a bit. For example, I have played against players rated 1750 who claim and play like 2100 fide while I have also played players rated 1750 that play like a person rated 1400 fide. Is there any possible conversion factor and why are the skill levels so spread out?