I would like to make a comprehensive chart of correlations between Chess.com Online chess ratings and FIDE rating, so that many players which are now just speculating about their real-life rating on the basis of Chess.com's one, will be able to get a roughly accurate assessment.
To do that, I will need a data of at least 100 players for each correlation graph.
pfffff
I could give you my entry (even though your graph is already done)
CFC-1900
FIDE-1700 (after 6 games)
Online-2050
TT-2157
The piece of information that will be least accurate is my FIDE.
Fide 1570
Online 1850
TT 2100
Though i just got my Fide rating from 1498 to 1570 this month, my online and tt ratings are fairly stable for long time (i rarely solve TT and dont play Online for a long time)
I could give you my entry (even though your graph is already done)
CFC-1900
FIDE-1700 (after 6 games)
Online-2050
TT-2157
The piece of information that will be least accurate is my FIDE.
Well, I have saved the code for the graphs so I can add a new entry whenever I want.
I didn't include yours, because you didn't have a FIDE rating at the time. Given the fact, that you only played 6 games by now, your rating probably isn't reflecting your real strength. Thus, I'm not going to include you yet. 
Fide 1570
Online 1850
TT 2100
Though i just got my Fide rating from 1498 to 1570 this month, my online and tt ratings are fairly stable for long time (i rarely solve TT and dont play Online for a long time)
Thanks, despite that every single statement worries me. 
By my calculations, I should be an IM at least. 
FIDE 1792 (might be underrated)
Tactics Rating apx. 2400-2470
Online 1860
By my calculations, I should be an IM at least.
Well, the line is utter bullshit to be honest. There is a huge variance, as you can see below:
When you use the term "online" are you refering to the standard rating on chess.com? Because for some reason this site calls correspondence chess online chess. It makes no sense. I'm unsure of you mean correspondence or blitz, or standard.
Correspondence, of course. I'm using Chess.com terminology.
So, OP, have you come to any conclusions with this survey?
That the question of correlation between Chess.com's and official ratings won't be solved until V3. Hence, never.
So, OP, have you come to any conclusions with this survey?
The sample is far too small to make any conclusions. Look at the outliers in post #69.
The OP tried his very best, but there were just too few volunteers.
Mmm, just checked it, I have 1605 online and 1389 TT after 255 attempts.
me and msc might be responsible to mess up tactic rating
Well, this will be confusing.
online: 2101
FIDE: 1754
Tactics: 2789
lol
me and msc might be responsible to mess up tactic rating
Yes, how do you account for people who concentrate on tactic rating to the exclusion on say FIDE?
FIDE 2013 tactics 1659 online 0 (grossly underrated in all)
Well we simply don't play so much FIDE rated tournaments in Norway, anyhow I will play in the National Championship in Norway and might gain a few points.
TT ratings don't mean squat anyways. When a problem is too hard, I heard you can just refresh the page until you get an easier one without losing rating points.
More than that, there aren't so many TT problems, so simply you'll get the same positions often.
A good memory is enough to achieve a high rating.
Here you go, after 2 years or so; you can't say I haven't done it.
There were only 7 and 9 valid entries for USCF and FIDE respectively. They differ strongly from one another, but I didn't bother to do anything about that when fitting the line. Hence, the results are probably somewhat far from reality.