USCF comparison with ratings


I'd say for USCF to turn based, it goes about as follows.  The thing is that it really depends on how much time is spent on moves, what resources you use, etc. but in general this is fairly reliable as a converter.

<1300 = <800 USCF

1300-1500 = 800-1200 USCF

1500-1700 = 1200-1400 USCF

1700-1900 = 1400-1700 USCF

1900-2000 = 1700-1800 USCF

2000-2200 = 1800-2000 USCF

2200-2400 = usually 2000-2300 USCF

2400+ = almost always 3200-3400 USCF


Looks about right.

till that last bit


I have wondered about this for a long time.  It's gotten to the point where I feel I should get USFC rating just to see where I stand at conventional chess. I always found that the blitz and bullet rating were generally closer to a USFC rating though.  The analysis board makes CC chess so much easier. I think it closes the gap USFC players because if you have the time, you can play out everyline 5 moves deep instead of  mentally working things out.  I know I personally see about 3-5 moves ahead in OTB. In CC its closer to 6-10 because of the analysis board. 


I reached 1790 in USCF a long time ago, probably could have hit 1800 if I played more.  Here I am 1660, all time high is 1724.  So in my case it seems rating are lower  by about 100 points. 


I play only 10 minute blitz here tho, so take my last comment with a grain of salt


I think you're slightly raising's ratings in the comparison.

For example, I am USCF 1500, and < 1700 (1696).

When I play OTB, I generally can draw 1700s and every once in a while I can beat them, yet I have never beaten anyone over 1900 on (although I drew a 2000 once). I would say that the ratings are from 100-200 points higher here, but definately not up to a 300 point difference from what I've seen.


Both use Glicko systems. At "Quick Chess" speeds, Game in 10/5 to about Game in 60/5, both rating systems should, in principle, be roughly comparable.

With the obvious exception that on, the Centaurs, widespread use of FCO, MCO, and a host of "other laptop aids," will clearly distort the results.


I'd imagine mine would be similar (although I think I'm playing above my current rating) seeing as I don't use game explorer etc, assuming I cope with 90 minute time controls, which I don't think I spend on an online game anyway.


So As far as I can tell from these posts, USCF is generally higher than ratings?


dunno about uscf


1507 fide

1512 tb


I did a brief, unofficial comparison in the 1500 to 1700 area some time back. Those results would agree somewhat with gregkurrell's observation above.

For what it's worth, have a look.


Well --a it looks like that's an accurate statement. 1507 FIDE = 1607 USCF approximately. So in your case, this is true as well.


And a person's rating could naturally fluctuate as much as 299 performance  points, which I think, is reflected the use of "rating floors" in the USCF system.

Partly this is to restrict sandbaggers, but it also reflects a "normal range" of playing strength from game to game, depending on whether your playing style matches up well (or not) with your opponent, along with a host of other intangilble factors.

For example, Bill Goichberg imposes rating floors on many of the winners of his tourneys in the "amateur classes," in order to force them to play up the following year, or in his other big money tournaments.


Good points, zborg. I believe Arpad Elo's original notion was that 200 ratings points would represent roughly 1 sigma deviation in the ratings pool. But certainly our own playing strength fluctuates that much from outing to outing, if not game to game (assuming we're not on the rapid improvement curve of a new, quickly-learning player).


I am a bad player but my rating USCF if 1200 something and my rating here is 1017 or something ( I haven't played much here and a couple games I plaed horribly and I think my USCF is under rated I have a friend who is a 1600 and I beat him all the time


So from this we still see that although ratings do fluctuate, ratings are STILL lower than USCF. I think that some people don't believe this, but have not yet done a check to see if its factual. I think this disproves them. 


Since the pool of players here changes from time to time, it's also possible that a positive bias at one point in time could shift to a negative bias at a later time. It's also possible that the bias is positive in one ratings range and negative in another.


I have beaten a guy on here a couple of times whose rated at 1100 USCF, and I'm below 1300. His rating is 1385 or so. We're probably about equal skill level.


Well thats possible, but it will take quite a long time Id guess. Right now we don't have a big pool, but as the pool develops it will become more accurate


My USCF rating is in the 1900s, and I'd like to think that's an accurate indication of my playing strength, since I've had good results in my most recent USCF-rated tournaments. Here at though, my blitz and standard ratings have both been hovering in the 1700s for quite a while. I win most games against players below 1700, but I also lose a few against them, and in my experience it seems rather common for a 1500 player, for example, to be stronger than a USCF 1500 player. Above 1700 at they're usually better than I am, sometimes much better. I was even lucky enough to get a message recently, which I deleted without reading, with the subject "1700 is rubbish you loser." Better not tell him about my USCF rating!