Comparing USCF rating to Chess.com rating

How would you compare Chess.com ratings to the rating systems of Elo or USCF? I mean does 1500 here equal to 1500 USCF?

good question I was wondering the same thing

It's an apples/oranges comparison as NM Petersen indicates. OTB requires calmer nerves for sure. Going over a few games here I would have thought 500 point difference at least--a quick impression.

i am thinking 250-350 higher rating in chess.com if you put the effort

Zug is right, they are different animals. I do see lots of 1800+ players that would struggle to make 1500 otb.

Just don't. There are separate pools and slightly different formulas in calculating rating. Moreover, it's CC so that makes it apples to cucumbers.

It's a total apples vs. oranges thing comparing ratings between two groups using the same rating system, let alone two groups using a completely different rating systems.  Everyone should play better at CC rather than OTB for the reasons Zug pointed out, though not everyone seems to.

Based on other people's comments and my own observations, I think different people use CC games for a variety of different reasons.  Some people have large game loads and spend very little time per move and are happy with their quantity over quality approach.  Other folks have a low game load and analyze the heck out of the position before each move.  Some people play for the fun of playing, while others are hypercompetitive and play each game as if their immortal soul was at stake.  Some people use CC to try out new openings backed up by a chess book.  Some people are trying to hone their tactics for OTB and don't use the analysis board.  Some people only like to play with other people who are chatty during games and are more concerned with the social aspects of playing chess.  Etc.  Etc.  Etc.

Consequently, it is really hard (and potentially dangerous) to generalize about on-line CC ratings and try to compare them to OTB tournament ratings.  If you're playing in an OTB tournament, you're there (most likely...) because you want to spend a few hours or a few days playing serious chess, there aren't any distractions in the playing hall (usually...), and everyone has their opponent's full attention (for the most part...).  IMO, all of the different motivations people have for playing CC chess equate to self-imposed unequal playing conditions that are absent in OTB tournaments so ratings just won't line up well even if the apples vs. oranges factor wasn't in play.

That doesn't mean that the chess.com rating system is invalid.  IMO it accurately gives out relative ratings amongst players when employing their chosen CC style.  But if someone decides to change their style abruptly, you'd better watch out because the rating you see won't be the opponent you get... 

I don't understand the acronyms. What is CC and OTB?

CC = Correspondence Chess

OTB = Over The Board

these ratings are way off, I am only about 1200 USCF, but currently I am over 1800 here

...but that is really inflated, if I played enough games I bet I would be around 1600

i play a lot more games here than I do OTB, due to lack of time. So my rating is a lot different. Really, really different.

a better question might be...  Is my live chess ratings similar to my USCF ratings, since those two are much more related than CC and USCF.

I've never played an OTB game. I've only played computer chess. Chessmaster mostly. These games I've played on chess.com are my first live opponents.

Live chess ratings are likely to be similar aren't they?

My chess.com rating is much higher than my USCF rating.  Currently, my rating is in the 1400's, but is under what it should be since I am still in my provisional.  I would estimate my rating to be around 1600 although some games I play like a genius and others I play like a complete idiot.

My guess is that live ratings would probably come closest to tracking the USCF's "quick ratings" in terms of sorting people rated on both systems.  The absolute numbers for any rating pool are relative to that pool and have no absolute meaning outside of it.

For example, if everyone at chess.com started out whith an initial rating of 1000 instead of 1200 from day one, then everyone here would be rated 200 points lower than they are today.  Picking 1200 was an arbitrary choice, albeit not an unreasonable one since out in OTB play 1200 is about the point where you can draw a line between serious players/students and casual ones.  And it worked out OK, since the very top players here are master caliber (or very close to it) and are rated around 2500 or so, even if many of them don't have titles.  Still, no rating or rating system should be taken too seriously...

Check out my thread "Chess.com ratings are inflated" for more discussion on this topic.

I agree with Erik's point on this topic - ratings are only relevant within the environment in which they were created. This website is our environment and we have all sorts of people making our environment (check out YeOldeWildman's comments on the range of people we have here).

Overall, it is clear that there is some inflation of chess.com ratings over most other ratings systems, so don't go thinking you are 2100 FIDE just because you have that rating here - unpleasant shocks would await! It does all depend on how you go about playing here. If you are here to practise your OTB skills and never use a database, analysis board or books and spend a reasonable amount of time on each move then you might be quite close to your FIDE rating. If you do use any of the tools available here or spend a very long time on each move then your Chess.com rating will be inflated.

I save the webpage showing my rating, change it to 3000 and feel MUCH better about myself as a person.  I plan on having "patoplush chess.com rating 3000" tattooed on my stomach.