ecf higher than chess.com elo?
Sort:
x-7392654173
Sep 30, 2023
0
#1
hey guys
I have an ecf rating higher than my chess.com, is this normal
Sep 30, 2023
0
#3
If a player just over 450 is using an engine it isn’t a very good one. Stockfish could beat a super GM.
That said, there is bound to be a difference between ecf and elo on here, but over a large number of games at the same time limit it is unlikely to be that vast. I’m about 1650 elo in real life (about 130 ECF), but not as strong at blitz (quite). I reckon my rating on here roughly reflects that.
I don’t think that there is that much cheating on here. If there were I’d never win a game.
That said, there is bound to be a difference between ecf and elo on here, but over a large number of games at the same time limit it is unlikely to be that vast. I’m about 1650 elo in real life (about 130 ECF), but not as strong at blitz (quite). I reckon my rating on here roughly reflects that.
I don’t think that there is that much cheating on here. If there were I’d never win a game.
Oct 1, 2023
0
#4
ECF is normally 100 to 150 points lower than chess.com rapid. But if you have only played a few OTB games, your rating won’t be accurate yet.
usbspeakers wrote:
There is roughly 500 ELO point difference between a chess players live ELO and their chess.com ELO, due to cheating and bot usage not being used in live play.
That is, the most inaccurate thing I've heard all day. There is no way every person gains 500 elo by cheating, you are basically saying the majority of cc users gain 500 points by cheating.
Oct 17, 2023
0
#6
usbspeakers wrote:
ChesterWOV wrote:
bro just calls opponents they lose to "cheaters" 💀
How else do you explain the difference in ratings between computer opponents and human opponents? Computer opponents are set to play at a specific ELO level, and they will only do that. If you consistently beat 900-1000 elo computer players, but cant beat 500 ELO human players, the only logical explanation is that the human players are doing something the computer players do not. Given the snowflake egos of your average terminally online young person these days, it's pretty easy to figure out what is going on.
The only other explanation would be if the computer players ELOs were ALL off by a factor of 200% - 250%, which strikes me as far less likely than nerds on the spectrum cheating when there is no repercussions for being caught
There's a very simple explanation. ELO doesn't measure absolute player strength it measures relative player strength. You can see that for your self if you consider the fact that the rating changes are calculated only on the basis of win or lose and not on the quality of the moves. There's no reason to expect ratings to match in different sites. What you should expect is that any two players that play against each other on multiple sites have roughly the same difference in ELO on each.
