Three, I also doubt that any of my opponents really spent two or three days thinking on a critical move - if they were taking time it was probably for other reasons- and neither did I as the matter of fact.
I tend to not truly stare at a board for a few days to decide on a critical move. However, I'll glance at the position a few days in a row 2-3 times and just mull it over in my head an occasionally I'll have a epiphany! But sometimes not...
My turn-based rating here runs about 400 higher than my live rating. I played a few 5 0 games with a national master earlier this week; his live rating was mid-1600s. I think his turn based is close to his USCF: ~2200.
1600 for a national master? That just doesn't seem right. I'm currently 1800 live rating and I'm not even Class A yet in OTB. I'd expect an NM to be at least 2000 live rating on here.
It doesn't surprise me a bit. My Live rating runs consistently 100-200 below my OTB. When I play live, I typically sort the seeks by highest rating and take the highest avialable in the time controls I want, generally 1 0, 3 0, or 5 0, and occasionally 15 0 or 20 0. Most opponents are rated so far lower that I must win 75%+ or my rating goes down.
my live ratings and my otb strength are approx. equal. im a class C player USCF and my live ratings run between 1450 & 1550ish
My turn-based rating here runs about 400 higher than my live rating. I played a few 5 0 games with a national master earlier this week; his live rating was mid-1600s. I think his turn based is close to his USCF: ~2200.
1600 for a national master? That just doesn't seem right. I'm currently 1800 live rating and I'm not even Class A yet in OTB. I'd expect an NM to be at least 2000 live rating on here.
It doesn't surprise me a bit. My Live rating runs consistently 100-200 below my OTB. When I play live, I typically sort the seeks by highest rating and take the highest avialable in the time controls I want, generally 1 0, 3 0, or 5 0, and occasionally 15 0 or 20 0. Most opponents are rated so far lower that I must win 75%+ or my rating goes down.
Except that I know masters on here who do have a 2000+ live rating. In addition to that, I've looked at his live games and saw several losses to 1700s who were no more skilled at chess than I am (and plenty of them less skilled).
I don't know, maybe I'm better at blitz than I give myself credit for.
Or maybe this one NM doesn't take his live chess quite as seriously and simply doesn't try as hard under those conditions...
On another hand, I have the impression that here a bunch of players forgot that computer assistance is only allowed for correspondence games.
I was under the impression that there was NO computer assistance allowed...
For example, Reb (who is 2500 on chess.com) is only rated 1600 something in USCF postal, and 1800 something in ICCF. And yet his FIDE and USCF otb ratings are in the neighborhood of 2200.
The explanation should be clear for any normal human. You were told this many many times and refuse to accept it: nowadays CC ratings are meaningless because of computer assistance. Shall we try to make a drawing for you to understand?
2700-2900 here means 95-100% agreement with the first choice of Rybka. If Reb were so good, he would get first his GM title :)
I believe he (Schachgeek) was referring to Chess.com rating of 2700-2900, not FIDE. Since Chess.com ratings are inflated due to lesser competition, then it is not the same for FIDE; for FIDE it would translate to approximately 2200 otb. Nobody in history has ever achieved 2900 FIDE, yet.
Well, not to boast, but I won against an NM here in blitz - it was a time win in a probably drawn position, but still... I would guess though that he probably got his title when he was younger and might not play actively any more.
I was under the impression that there was NO computer assistance allowed...
Computer assistance for correspondence chess goes without saying. Where did you get that it is not allowed??
Use of chess programs is not allowed anywhere on this site. Read the TOS.
I was under the impression that there was NO computer assistance allowed...
Computer assistance for correspondence chess goes without saying. Where did you get that it is not allowed??
Use of chess programs is not allowed anywhere on this site. Read the TOS.
HA! You hear that all you cheaters out there?!?!?!?!?!?!
I was under the impression that there was NO computer assistance allowed...
Computer assistance for correspondence chess goes without saying. Where did you get that it is not allowed??
Use of chess programs is not allowed anywhere on this site. Read the TOS.
HA! You hear that all you cheaters out there?!?!?!?!?!?!
I only supplied info as to it not being allowed, without commenting on whether it is done.
I was under the impression that there was NO computer assistance allowed...
Computer assistance for correspondence chess goes without saying. Where did you get that it is not allowed??
Use of chess programs is not allowed anywhere on this site. Read the TOS.
HA! You hear that all you cheaters out there?!?!?!?!?!?!
I only supplied info as to it not being allowed, without commenting on whether it is done.
Yeah, i recently saw a post of someone looking at one of the top chess.com CC player's games. Ever single move was Rybka's #1 choice after the opening.... Maybe he's just really good? 
For example, Reb (who is 2500 on chess.com) is only rated 1600 something in USCF postal, and 1800 something in ICCF. And yet his FIDE and USCF otb ratings are in the neighborhood of 2200.
The explanation should be clear for any normal human. You were told this many many times and refuse to accept it: nowadays CC ratings are meaningless because of computer assistance. Shall we try to make a drawing for you to understand?
2700-2900 here means 95-100% agreement with the first choice of Rybka. If Reb were so good, he would get first his GM title :)
I believe he (Schachgeek) was referring to Chess.com rating of 2700-2900, not FIDE. Since Chess.com ratings are inflated due to lesser competition, then it is not the same for FIDE; for FIDE it would translate to approximately 2200 otb. Nobody in history has ever achieved 2900 FIDE, yet.
Correct. When my original post was quoted it got clipped. Here is the entire paragraph.
Unfortunately, there is no magic conversion formula.
For example, Reb (who is 2500 on chess.com) is only rated 1600 something in USCF postal, and 1800 something in ICCF. And yet his FIDE and USCF otb ratings are in the neighborhood of 2200. But he is primarily active over the board. So who's to say his chess.com rating is accurate. If he were to focus on chess.com play, I have no doubt he'd be capable of 2700-2900 (chess.com rating points).
My USCF correspondence is 1805. I finished my last game in 1999 when my OTB USCF was 1400s. Now, my USCF OTB is just under 1900. All this is to say that ratings are relevant only when they are active. Glicko takes this into account in its formula, ratings can change dramatically when a person begins playing again after a long period of inactivity.
I had a certain argument about this a while ago though, Glicko tends to overestimate the up-and-down changes that take place after a period of inactivity, when the things might well settle close to where they were a little later. I think that the Live ratings were made somewhat more stable a few months ago, and an understanding was reached that people don't actually jump two levels up or down in the matter of a few weeks.
I had a certain argument about this a while ago though, Glicko tends to overestimate the up-and-down changes that take place after a period of inactivity, when the things might well settle close to where they were a little later. I think that the Live ratings were made somewhat more stable a few months ago, and an understanding was reached that people don't actually jump two levels up or down in the matter of a few weeks.
By my logic, ratings could reset for any person at any given time and it should make it's way to where that person fits in. So it truly shouldn't matter if after an absense someone's rating becomes more maliable; why even bother? It will eventually make it's way up (or down) according to skill level.
Mark Glickman's description of the problem:
"Suppose two players, both rated 1700, played a tournament game with the first player defeating the second. Under the US Chess Federation's version of the Elo system, the first player would gain 16 rating points and the second player would lose 16 points. But suppose that the first player had just returned to tournament play after many years, while the second player plays every weekend. In this situation, the first player's rating of 1700 is not a very reliable measure of his strength, while the second player's rating of 1700 is much more trustworthy."
Read more concerning how the Glicko system considers reliability in ratings at http://www.glicko.net/glicko/glicko.doc/glicko.html.
Mark Glickman's description of the problem:
"Suppose two players, both rated 1700, played a tournament game with the first player defeating the second. Under the US Chess Federation's version of the Elo system, the first player would gain 16 rating points and the second player would lose 16 points. But suppose that the first player had just returned to tournament play after many years, while the second player plays every weekend. In this situation, the first player's rating of 1700 is not a very reliable measure of his strength, while the second player's rating of 1700 is much more trustworthy."
Read more concerning how the Glicko system considers reliability in ratings at http://www.glicko.net/glicko/glicko.doc/glicko.html.
With this method you are assuming that absence from chess will always make one weaker and while I think this might be true in many cases I think its not true all the time. How long was the absence ? Perhaps the absent player has been working hard on chess during his absence and may come back even stronger than when he left ? Fischer actually did this a couple of times in his career.
Mark Glickman's description of the problem:
"Suppose two players, both rated 1700, played a tournament game with the first player defeating the second. Under the US Chess Federation's version of the Elo system, the first player would gain 16 rating points and the second player would lose 16 points. But suppose that the first player had just returned to tournament play after many years, while the second player plays every weekend. In this situation, the first player's rating of 1700 is not a very reliable measure of his strength, while the second player's rating of 1700 is much more trustworthy."
Read more concerning how the Glicko system considers reliability in ratings at http://www.glicko.net/glicko/glicko.doc/glicko.html.
With this method you are assuming that absence from chess will always make one weaker and while I think this might be true in many cases I think its not true all the time. How long was the absence ? Perhaps the absent player has been working hard on chess during his absence and may come back even stronger than when he left ? Fischer actually did this a couple of times in his career.
I'm simply passing on Glickman's comment because his notion came up in the discussion.
Even so I must disagree that his system assumes a player is weaker after a extended absence. In his example, the absent player grew stronger. But, the point is neither weaker nor stronger. The Glicko system makes no such assumption. It does assume that inactivity renders a rating unreliable, and thus such ratings become volatile as they are for provisional players in the USCF system becuase they have so little rating history. They can go up or down dramatically.
Consider as an example, my USCF correspondence rating. I last played a USCF CC game in 1999. Presumably I am stronger now. However, the pool may be stronger too, especially if, as I suspect, cheat detection within that pool is ineffective. With the Elo formula, my rating would change no more and no less if I had been playing the intervening decade. Glicko's formula would take account of the fact that I've played over 40,000 games since 1999, and that my old CC rating is not a reliable reflection of my current strength. I would gain more from beating another 1805 in the Glicko system than I would in the Elo.
Mark Glickman is a statistician for whom reliability is an important technical term. That is the crux of his issue with ratings of inactive players.
From the TOS:
You can NEVER use chess programs (Chessmaster, Fritz, etc) to analyze current ongoing games unless specifically permitted (such as a computer tournament, etc). The only type of computer assistance allowed is games databases for opening lines in Turn-based Chess and Vote Chess. You cannot receive ANY outside assistance on Live Chess games.
From the TOS:
No Cheating or Computer Help
You can NEVER use chess programs (Chessmaster, Fritz, etc) to analyze current ongoing games unless specifically permitted (such as a computer tournament, etc). The only type of computer assistance allowed is games databases for opening lines in Turn-based Chess and Vote Chess. You cannot receive ANY outside assistance on Live Chess games.
Found here:
http://www.chess.com/legal.html
Well, some masters don't like to play rated games here so maybe they just played a few. You would expect an NM who plays regularly in Live to be fairly close to their OTB rating, assuming that the OTB rating is recent, and so on.