It depends on what type of chess rating you are comparing chess.com's ratings to. USCF ratings are inflated relative to FIDE ratings.
Inflated Ratings
Sort:
Aug 7, 2014
0
#3
Mine's about 5% higher than my CFC rating... but then, CFC ratings are about 5%-10% lower than USCF ratings. Win a few, lose a few.
My online rating is around 1700. I know I'm not really that good because I use Games Explorer for opening moves. Still, everyone can use this, and I do actually have to still win the games beyond move 15.
Live 1-min I fluctuate between 1300-1400.
My live 3-min is only 1070 because I played heaps on my phone and kept losing due to poor connections and inability to premove. I'd say my true ELO is probably close to the lower end of my Live fluctuations, that is to say just scraping 1300.
Aug 7, 2014
0
#5
Online 1770, blitz 1921, bullet 1930, Fide 1760, Selo (Finnish version of standard Elo) 1910, Pelo (Finnish version on ELo blitz) 1850
Aug 7, 2014
0
#6
BTW: I'm better than my FIDE ELO suggests - Selo is usually something like +50 of your Fide Elo but with young players and not that much ELO tournaments in Finland ELO is following you slooowly.
Same. Online is about right, maybe -10-10% low.
Aug 7, 2014
0
#10
I look at live standard rating as probably much more accurate than online/turn-based rating. From what I've been told, the online rating here is probably about 200 points higher than one would have for FIDE.
It's really amazing how often this silly topic is started here.
I think it is nearly to the point of being a troll standard.
Blitz, unless you're bad it at otb as well, is accurate.
kleelof wrote:
It's really amazing how often this silly topic is started here.
I think it is nearly to the point of being a troll standard.
Really, I've never seen this topic in the forums before. And I am not a troll.
camberfoil wrote:
kleelof wrote:
It's really amazing how often this silly topic is started here.
I think it is nearly to the point of being a troll standard.
Really, I've never seen this topic in the forums before. And I am not a troll.
Wasn't really saying you are. Just an observation.
This is one of those standard topics that often come up where it goes on for pages and pages and in the end just proves that there is no solid correlation between OTB ratings and online ratings.
Sure, you will see people post analysis that shows something like blitz ratings average 15% lower or higher than OTB ratings. But these numbers really mean nothing because there are so many misrepresentations in the values.
Anyway, just for the fun of it, I've gone ahead and opened one of these:
You should take back the can of worms to the store you bought them from, they don't look cooked to the mandated 185 degrees to ensure the destruction of desease-causing microbes. Unless they're microwavable, like a can-of-worms Chef Boyardee...
Yumm....disease-causing microbes.
People at c.c have access to too many memes/other graphics.
bangalore2 wrote:
People at c.c have access to too many memes/other graphics.
It's no secret that chess.com's ratings are more than a little bit innacurate. What do people believe is the percent error (generally) for the overinflated chess.com ratings?