Internet ELO ratings compared to actual FIDE ratings

The most difficult problem to account for when attempting to convert a rating awarded by one chess organization into an 'equivalent' rating awarded by another is the fact that most,if not all, of these rating systems are (over the course of time)  in a continuous process of modification due to administrative tinkering.

The typical chess organization adopts a reasonable formula for the calculation of ratings, (Elo ,Glicko,etc.) and is then unable to resist the urge to modify it.

More often than not, this is done with the best of intentions. Nevertheless, the integrity of the formula itself is inevitably compromised.

Yes that's certainly true, given a few variables to tinker with people cannot resist eg contemplating increasing rds (already too high at chess.com) for no good reason other than you can.

Overall for me the various governing bodies and also the new dot com outfits are doing a good job in aggregating the grades.

Anomalies will always happen on the net for personal reasons, centaurs etc. But its hoped these are a minority.

>:)

In England, we use BCF ratings which can be converted into a FIDE rating ......

Really?

Germany used to have their own rating system too, called ingo zahl or something like that. I wonder if they still do ? I think it would simplify things if all countries went by fide/elo ratings myself. I had an ingo-zahl when I was in Germany (80s) of 96 or 97 , which I didnt understand what this meant. I saw GM Larry Christiansen playing in a tourney while there and his was like 39, which is the lowest I had seen. But the lower the number the stronger the player !  I dont know if they still use this rating system or not but I never did get used to it.

There are a lot of different rating systems.

I guess a lot of players like to play blitz games on the internet.

Thought the blitz ratings cannot accurately be compared with ELO or BCF ratings I have found a table of comparison which might give you an indication of what your position could be in another rating system.

One thought I had is that you play substantially more games that are not rated online than one's that are FIDE or USCF rated. As a result, if you improve, you will see that improvement much more quickly on a non-FIDE/USCF rated. It takes a lot longer to see the rating get reflected. For example, I recently played in a tournament with youngsters who have been playing all year online and have improved their skills substantially since they last played in an official rated tournament. I had an under 1000 beat me more than once yet my rating on ChessBase is presently 1525 and my USCF rating is 1418.