Real life vs. Online chess ratings

i ould say that chess.com ratings are around 300-400 higher than otb...

I'm sorry, bcf is a joke, and that table is way out.  bcf 90 is more like 1350, maybe not even that.  If the people in england really want to be able to compare themselves to the rest of the world, they're going to need to use elo.  bcf just doesnt convert well no matter how hard they try to botch it. 

USCF im 1064, Chess.com im 1400~

a difference is there, but not more than 300 , i guess..

I'm not going to suggest that ratings from diverse player pools and with different systems (ELO vs Glicko) should correlate, but the factors above would apply to one's opponent as well, so it should cancel out in principle.

My intuition tells me that the lower the ratings the less reliably they correlate, the higher the ratings, the better.

hmm actually the ecf website is now giving this, which appears to be similar to how it used to be and at least appears to make a little bit more sense than that crazy list above.  I've no idea what they were thinking last year.  It seems they've realised they made a mess of it though.

I'm 2300 here, but only 1525 USCF!!  I've analyzed some of the reasons: it's easier to concentrate/think out things here; I spend a fair amount of time; I play better when not stressed; I care about winning these games.  For example, on key moves I can ponder a number of diff. strategies and then calculate out more variations.  On the flip side, opponents aren't here obviously aren't as into some of the games as me.   I recently played a USCF expert+ here online, someone in person who likely would demolish me, and online he dropped his queen to a two-move combination.  OTB, surely he would be focusing on that but here, not as much.  Here, I also get to choose my competition whereas in real OTB play, I can't avoid being compelled to play people whose skill-set in OTB play is well suited to beating me (that is they're actually good and pay attention-ha!).

I'm 2300 here, but only 1525 USCF!!  I've analyzed some of the reasons: it's easier to concentrate/think out things here; I spend a fair amount of time; I play better when not stressed; I care about winning these games.  For example, on key moves I can ponder a number of diff. strategies and then calculate out more variations.  On the flip side, opponents aren't here obviously aren't as into some of the games as me.   I recently played a USCF expert+ here online, someone in person who likely would demolish me, and online he dropped his queen to a two-move combination.  OTB, surely he would be focusing on that but here, not as much.  Here, I also get to choose my competition whereas in real OTB play, I can't avoid being compelled to play people whose skill-set in OTB play is well suited to beating me (that is they're actually good and pay attention-ha!).

 The factors given will only cancel out if they apply to players evenly. Take the the analysis board as a substitute for visualization. Someone with poor visualization skills is going to get a bigger boost from using an analysis board than someone with good visualization skills.

Excellent point ... though they would truly cancel out if everyone was on a level playing field.

Not every one of us uses some or ALL of the advantages that online play allows us to use. The really strong ones don't have to use any. The weaker ones just "appear" stronger by using them a whole lot more. Does that really make for a "fair and balanced" rating system that correlates with true playing strength? Nope ... though your intuition sounds about right ... the correlation can be more reliable for the really higher-rated players..

Imagine if on your next OTB rated game, your "much lower rated" opponent brought in an MCO book and had a laptop with a gajillion game database. You evidently don't need crutches like he does, but are you comfortable playing against a golf-handicap with your rating on the line?

With real OTB games, you have nothing but yourself ... the only tool at your disposal besides your noggin is time on your clock.

"I'm sorry, bcf is a joke, and that table is way out.  bcf 90 is more like 1350, maybe not even that.  If the people in england really want to be able to compare themselves to the rest of the world, they're going to need to use elo.  bcf just doesnt convert well no matter how hard they try to botch it.  "

I have to agree with most of this, ECF (BCF died years ago) need to pull their fingers out. There's been a number of conversion rates in the last few years and none of them are quite right. I started playing rapid-play tournaments in France a few years ago, a day trip from the chess club, 4-8 of us at a time. The French organisers soon became savvy to the fact that English players were nearly always underrated by the conversion and informed the club secretary that they would no longer accept our ratings (our boys were mopping up big time on the grading prizes). Instead we had to bring a full list of all our results in French competitions, from this we were given "honorary" French Federation ratings although none of us paid a subscription! We still figure highly in the final table, but fewer grading prizes are won by our raiding parties.

it's probably heresy,but chess is chess;it's analysis is over rated

i agree

im a 1350-1450 USCF strength player  online ive reached 1975 and average high 1800's to low 1900's, live chess im hover around the 1500 mark.  if that helps any, i seems that the live chess rating correlates better to otb than online turnbased.  but really there isnt any good way to compare so you need to play rated OTB games for the answer for you and your situation.

Also, I think the rating system on this site is somewhat messed up: I can challenge people with a lower rating and if I win I still see my rating increasing. If I am a 1600 player and I win against a 900 I'm not any stronger. So I think the ratings on chess.com are particularly not very indicative.

 Your rating will go up less and less the more you play low rated players. With a decent RD, a 1600 will gain nothing from beating a 900.

Same here. I don’t have my phone dying, lose connection , or forget that I’m playing OTB lol.

In my mind any use of the internet to get thru a game is cheating. Same applies to use of a friend or books. Am I correct?

I think the rating might be different based on ABCD category, some categories more affected than others, but percentile should be generally accurate