# How does a chess.com rating compare to a USCF?

I have never played any tournaments so I don't have an "official" rating.

Here on chess.com I am in the 1400-1500 range currently in standard live chess which puts me in the 92.5% percentile, is this equivalent to anything in terms of UCSF? I am not looking for anything precise, just a general idea of what my rating here might mean, since I am just recently beginning to defeat players over 1500 rating here.

Thanks

http://archive.uschess.org/ratings/ratedist.php

That is an older ratings distribution table, but I wouldn't expect the numbers to change that much over just a few years. You can compare that one to the chess.com ratings distribution chart that is around here somewhere...

where do i find percentile?:)

Thanks

What about for standard live chess (more than 10 minute time control)? Do you have any idea what the 92.5% percentile (my current rating is 1483) might mean USCF?

I feel like I have improved somewhat but that I am still very far from Expert or even class A...

Rolf1: Click "see full stats" in the "Stats" box when you are on the online chess or live chess page

thanks!:)

Chess.com calculates a daily rank and gives the total number of players with it.

Your Percentile = 100x{rank/number of players}

I guess this straight away tells anyone where s/he stands.

ruy_e4e5 wrote:

Chess.com calculates a daily rank and gives the total number of players with it.

Your Percentile = 100x{rank/number of players}

I guess this straight away tells anyone where s/he stands.

Where is this daily ranking published?

thanks.....

Ok thanks!

please note,  like most other chess sites, it consits of international members.

for instance , official FIDE ratings are more preceise and stronger then USCF ratings.

for instance  a 1500 FIDE player is in no way comparible with a 1500 USCF player.  USCF is by accepted standards about 100 lower.  so , if you are beating a 1500 USCF player, than he is in strength comparible to a 1400 FIDE player.

that goes also for 2200 + ,  from IM and upwards,  they already do international FIDE games which makes it more equal.

kharv wrote:

Thanks

What about for standard live chess (more than 10 minute time control)? Do you have any idea what the 92.5% percentile (my current rating is 1483) might mean USCF?

I feel like I have improved somewhat but that I am still very far from Expert or even class A...

In my experience the live ratings are a lot closer to your OTB rating than turn based, for example my OTB rating is roughly equal to 1682 FIDE, my live rating all be it blitz is low 1600s, my turn based rating is mid 1800s, there are a number of people from my chess league who play on this site and their numbers are roughly the same difference. Hope that helps

@KrisRhodes

The rank is put daily on the right hand column of your online chess profile / online chess home (for online chess, I think thy do it for other types of chess as well).

Also, what others are saying is correct: chess.com does not have as many 'serious' players on it so it will naturally give a weaker rating then USCF or FIDE. At the end of the day a FIDE ranking counts higher than any other.

I dont think a 1500 player here is a class D player. According to DrawMaster, the live ratings here match up to your real life ratings pretty well. They are not exact, but they are decently accurate.

You might be around a 1400 level. Keep in mind that there is no "objective" scale of ratings - your USCF rating changes every time you play in a tournament, after all, whether your chess skill has changed or not! And it is highly dependent on the ratings of the people you play if you don't play all that much.

offtherook wrote:

Percentile ranks for chess.com and USCF will not match up at all. Chess.com's rating pool includes hordes of patzers who installed the Facebook app; USCF's pool only includes reasonably serious players who took the effort to seek out an official tournament.

I'm currently in the 96th percentile here, 85th in USCF. Huge difference.

If you're in the area of 1500 here, you are nowhere near Class A (1800-2000) USCF. 1500 here probably corresponds roughly to Class D (1200-1400).

I agree with your first paragraph. But as for your chess.com rating, your rating is turn based (correspondence) not live. I don't think correspondence ratings mean anything except that maybe you take more advantage of your vaste amount of time than your opponent does.

Does chess.com have separate statistics for live and turn based chess ratings?

The difference between USCF and chess.com is

1. Different pool of chess players.

2. Longer games require more memory capacity than does blitz.

3. Computers don't help in OTB.

4. Does USCF start people at 1200 too?

5. chess.com quickly titrates new people, making them immediately play a higher rated player after they beat a 1200 player. USCF allows you to play 10 people in the same class at your first rated tournament, allowing a master to win many tournaments before finally being rated a master and having to play peers.

FWIW, I played my first USCF rated tournament a couple weeks ago.  My chess.com rating is starting to stabilize around 1500 +/- 50 (correspondence).  Based on my tournament performance, I'm expecting a provisionary USCF rating around 1150 or so.  Even subtracting for nerves and the newness factor, I wouldn't put my "real" rating much above 1250 (and I'm comfortable with the 1150, since a lot of the rating measures one's consistency of play, and I'm not consistent yet.)

Your situation might be different, depending on how you actually play, but I'd expect almost anyone's OTB rating to be lower than a correspondence rating.  The analysis board, ability to do some research, and in general, being able to play rested and focussed all of the time all have inflated my chess.com rating. Also, you don't have a lot of games played yet, so your rating is still going to fluctuate a lot; see where you're at after 50 or 100 games.  That's likely to give a better idea of your relative strength here. Also, the strength of your opponents will have a much bigger effect on your chess.com rating, so be sure to play several people 200-400 points higher than you.

IMO, if you were to play a tournament next week and be competitive within 100 points of your chess.com rating (i.e. play at a 1400 USCF level), you'd be doing really well.

When I was 17, my brother and I drove out to a USCF official tournament in another city. We played in the under 1600 section, and were unrated. The average rating of my opponents was about 1400. All were adults. Before the tournament I played one of them and won. He was 1400, I think. Later in the tournament, I lost to him, and beat two others. I was 3rd place out of 8. There was a tactical point in the game where I had to choose between two moves: a safer one that left him with a slight edge, and a risky looking one that might win. There were many variations to consider, going deep, and I chose the safer one. During the 5 minutes he thought of his response, I realized the risky one would have won a piece. Too late. I lost the game with 30 minutes left on my clock.

Fast forward 15 years. I've been rusty, but I've also drilled books I did not do before. I know checkmates and endgame skills I previously did not know, though my opening knowledge is less. My rating on this site is pretty stable at 1450 in 10 minute blitz. So I'd say the ratings on this site are pretty accurate, within 100 points or so.

I suspect most people at tournaments are underrated, since it has been a while since their last tournament. If they have not been playing, they are overrated. If they have been reading the right books for their level, they are overrated. And if they were just playing random games, their ratings are probably about accurate.

Here's a quasi-scientific sampling I conducted some time back ... it's at least interesting if not meaningful.

Internet ratings and otb ratings cannot be reliably compared. My online ratings are higher on every site I play on except one .  Also people tend to compare online blitz/bullet/action ratings to otb classic/slow ratings. Surely everyone can see the problem(s) with doing this ?