FIDE vs CHESS. COM rating

1400 in rapid...meaning the standard time control in chess.com like G15|10 or G30?

Though many like to shoot from the hip that FIDE is 200 points lower, etc., this is pretty much not the case (there are quite a few posts where people have gone over the data using players with ratings in both groups).

Within a good guestimate, you'd be about 1400 FIDE.

can I compete with a guy from fide 1400 rating?

Do you play positional chess or tactical chess

GMJAS, I would say you can, but the best way to know is just play him.  It really is no harm even if you get beat easily.  But...I don't think that will happen...FIDE ratings and chess.com ratings are not that far apart, and FIDE isn't always the tougher scale either.

one of the things people seem to miss All the time is the great difference in time.  Even with G30 you are talking about a game that might last an hour with a game that could last many hours.

different people have differences of strength with the extra time- some people use it poorly and lose against the generic FIDE 1400 and other people use it better.

this is one of the reasons some people play Long time controls online.  G4545 / G6030  perhaps longer than that if you can find a willing partner.

another curiosity in your situation.  It was my impression that people below 2000 rarely got FIDE ratings.  surely in india your member country rates club level players doesn't it?  this wouldn't be FIDE, though....

My USCF rating is 1595, so is probably really somewhere between 1495 and 1695 (haven't played a lot of OTB recently so it might drop at my next tourney). Most of those games were G/60+. 

Chances for FIDE rating are a bit limited so I don't have one yet. I think in general USCF - 100 is about the FIDE rating.

At lower levels people are usually overly concerned with their rating. While it may be good to know your rating, the only way you can truly know is by playing FIDE matches. Even then lower rated players can still beat you, also you may be able to beat some higher rated players. Sometimes. I used to play a guy that was around 1800 OTB, I could beat him on my good days 3 times out of 8. However that wasn't in a tournament. I was trying to mainly improve my Sicilian game when I played black. He had roomed with a master in college, he was good, and tough to win against.

I disagree, this is widespread myth that rating is a measure of "skill" or "chess strength" - totally wrong. chess rating is a measure of "performance"....

more skillful and strong players perform better.

yes, and that's in some instances only because they are playing ten times more games than any of us will ever play

the logic is strong with you newt.

I'm not saying oc that there isn't a correlation, surely players with strong chess strength DO perform better.... but there is no "standard" of what a 1200 is, in terms of chess strength- different groups of people might make that a harder or easier to achieve.  instead 1200 is an achievement and so is 2000.    the amount of games MIGHT make a difference.  for example, players who play alot  of games might build there ability to concentrate for long stretches at a time; whereas others might feel tired towards the end of a long standard game and blunder.

Well, if you look at the stats, the mean is not centred around 1200 for many of the modes, but this is roughly average for FIDE isn't it (this is what I have heard, don't shoot me if I'm wrong)? Rapid seems marginally higher just based on that, while blitz and bullet are lower. 

Blitz ratings certainly feel very low...though I can hardly complain, as I lose a lot of blitz games on stupid one move blunders, I often seem to find friggin' 1200s with decent tactical insight and aggressive, purposeful play. 

Im about 1400/1500 Fide and 1400 online here. My blitz its a bit higher although.

Bump^

hi. elo rating