elo vs. chess.com rating

just curious as to any possible correlation between elo ratings vs. chess.com ratings. for example, if you're chess.com rating is 1500 it's most likely that your elo rating would be 1300 (sort of thing). anyone know?

I dont think its that big of a jump... 

Not sure. I think I heard 1000 - 2000 are fairly accurate (within a 100 elo points) if you have played many games but towards the higher end of the table, the rating tends to be a bit inflated. On the playchess.com site, top grandmasters have a rating over 3000, but I'm uncertain if this is just for blitz or not.

It could be that grandmasters have very few opponents to challenge them, because how often do you see two GM's on at the same time?  I also think it depends on how many total games you've played, and development.  Because many 1200 strength players drop to like 800 after a bad match or two in the beginning.  Then they have a long tough road to actually get to 1200.

I don't have an official ELO rating, but I've played a lot on Yahoo (usually 15-20 minute timed games) and I have trouble staying over 1400. On here I have no problem hovering around 1800. I don't know if the same formula is used to calculate the ratings or not, but my feeling is it's significantly inflated on here. Also, there are so many variables. It really depends on who you're playing and how seriously they're taking the games. Because of the amt of time you have for each move on chess.com, a weaker player who's going nuts with the analysis board and only playing 2-3 games at a time can hold his/her own against a very strong player who's playing 20+ games and just glancing quickly before each move (I generally fall into the former category!). This kind of disparity in attention is probably much less likely in real-time games with time controls.

Internet vs. OTB has a HUGE disparity--especially between correspondence and OTB, because there is a huge difference in the factors you are dealing with.