USCF Ratings - Chess Forums - Page 4

thesexyknight · 2010-01-21T21:08:53-08:00

Of those of you out there that are USCF rated (or even FIDE), how much inflation of ratings online would you reason there to be? Edit note: The forum has somewhat transposed into a discussion of the place of ratings, OTB vs CC, etc. Which is good.

Ziryab

Apr 4, 2010

0

#61

grivei wrote:

PrawnEatsPrawn wrote:

Found here:

http://www.chess.com/legal.html

Very well hidden! How is this enforced? I mean, there might be rules which forbid playing chess while drinking, but who cares about them :)

Well hidden? I play on a lot of websites and cannot think of another where such info is as easy to find, nor as clear both as to stipulations and enforcement.

Kernicterus

Apr 4, 2010

0

#62

Maybe it would be a good idea to make it more prominent. When I first signed up on this site a year back...I couldn't even comprehend the difference between computer programs and database use...

Perhaps at the start of each game there could be a small reminder that outside assistance and computer help are not allowed...along with the info packet about the opponent?

thesexyknight

Apr 4, 2010

0

#63

AfafBouardi wrote:

Perhaps at the start of each game...along with the info packet about the opponent?

Was that sarcastic? Lol

Atos

Apr 5, 2010

0

#64

grivei wrote:

Ziryab wrote:

Well hidden? I play on a lot of websites and cannot think of another where such info is as easy to find, nor as clear both as to stipulations and enforcement.

ICC states the rules much more clearly in my opinion.

OK, so the 2800+ players here are talented amateurs, not centaurs? Might be, who knows...

By the way, how come there is no IM or GM who plays blitz games here? There are hundreds on other servers. Is there something wrong here?

You might want to join the cheating forum:

http://www.chess.com/groups/home/cheating-forum

Ziryab

Apr 5, 2010

0

#65

Schachgeek wrote:

Reb wrote:

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.

Agree with Reb (this time anyway).

Two factors that affects a rating's accuracy is how active the player has been, and when. A prolonged absence from rated play would suggest the rating is inaccurate, but that could go either direction-stronger or weaker.

You are contradicting yourself. Glickman does not assume that absence makes a player weaker. Indeed, in Glickman's example, the player grew stronger. How Reb found in that example an assumption that a stronger player (based on hypothetical evidence) had indeed grown weaker defies every known system of logic. You are agreeing with a misreading, and then siding with the refutation of this misreading. You need to read the post to which Reb was replying, then read the rebuttal.

His attribution of my assumption is nonsense on two counts:

1. I was not expressing my views. Even if I agree with Glickman, I did not say so.

2. Glickman's argument assumes only that absence makes the rating unreliable, not that the player is stronger or weaker. But, in his hypothetical example, the player that had been absent grew stronger.

How Glickman's example indicates an assumption that he grew weaker is beyond me.

Indeed, it is similar to this argument:

Joe: Consider how carbon monoxide from your SUV increases the particles in the air, and how warmer temperatures are associated with higher levels of carbon in the atmosphere.

Fred: You are assuming that auto emissions cause global cooling.

thesexyknight

Apr 5, 2010

0

#66

Schachgeek wrote:

It's equally funny to see statisticians talk about chess, as if they were knowledgeable.

They're knowledgable about the numbers, not the chess.... Numbers don't lie :D. X will always equal (-b  ±(b  ²-4ac)^  ½)/2a. Yay numbers!

thesexyknight

Apr 5, 2010

0

#67

grivei wrote:

Atos wrote:

grivei wrote:

Ziryab wrote:

Well hidden? I play on a lot of websites and cannot think of another where such info is as easy to find, nor as clear both as to stipulations and enforcement.

ICC states the rules much more clearly in my opinion.

OK, so the 2800+ players here are talented amateurs, not centaurs? Might be, who knows...

By the way, how come there is no IM or GM who plays blitz games here? There are hundreds on other servers. Is there something wrong here?

You might want to join the cheating forum:

http://www.chess.com/groups/home/cheating-forum

I don't understand.

Browsing through the list of players I found that Julio Becerra, who recently won the SPICE tourney is not in the first 200 players. Are people here that good? There is another GM placed above Becerra, but he only played 9 games. Nevertheless, he is not in top 50. These two guys appear to be the only GM's in top 300 (I didn't look below).

As for blitz, it appears that no GM has ever played here. There is an IM (dpruess) who is ranked about 280.

I think a lot of GM fear playing because of how many people in this world use engines. It's a legitimate reason so far as I"m concerned.

Dietmar

Apr 5, 2010

0

#68

careyfan wrote:

My USCF rating is 1564, but I only play in one tournament/year. I estimate my actual OTB strength to be around 1630-1650. So in my case, my online rating on chess.com is inflated by around 300 points.

Online rating at chess.com: around 1900.

Blitz on chess.com: 1650-1700

Bullet rating on chess.com: around 1650

Chess mentor rating: around 2100

Tactics trainer: around 1900-2000

As my last USCF tourney is 10 years in the past, my rating (close to 1600) may be outdated but it pretty much matches my live chess rating on various servers where I essentially play 3 0 or less. However:

Online rating here: 2250

Tactics trainer: about 2200

The reasons for the gap between live (USCF) and online rating are easy to explain:

- plenty of timeout victories (aka free points)

- playing a manageable number of games (typically 10 or less)

- quite a number of opponents play so many games that essentially every online game is a blitz game for them

- looking at the position several times if time permits

- use of opening database

As for the tactics trainer, the difficult part was to get thru the 1600-1800 range. I haven't found the 2000+ level to be more difficult than the one below. The trickiest part is that every once in a while they throw in a problem where the solution is to simply take a piece for free in one move. Of course, you spend a long time before you dare to take it as you expect some deep tactical trick.

Dietmar

Apr 5, 2010

0

#69

thesexyknight wrote:

grivei wrote:

Atos wrote:

grivei wrote:

Ziryab wrote:

Well hidden? I play on a lot of websites and cannot think of another where such info is as easy to find, nor as clear both as to stipulations and enforcement.

ICC states the rules much more clearly in my opinion.

OK, so the 2800+ players here are talented amateurs, not centaurs? Might be, who knows...

By the way, how come there is no IM or GM who plays blitz games here? There are hundreds on other servers. Is there something wrong here?

You might want to join the cheating forum:

http://www.chess.com/groups/home/cheating-forum

I don't understand.

Browsing through the list of players I found that Julio Becerra, who recently won the SPICE tourney is not in the first 200 players. Are people here that good? There is another GM placed above Becerra, but he only played 9 games. Nevertheless, he is not in top 50. These two guys appear to be the only GM's in top 300 (I didn't look below).

As for blitz, it appears that no GM has ever played here. There is an IM (dpruess) who is ranked about 280.

I think a lot of GM fear playing because of how many people in this world use engines. It's a legitimate reason so far as I"m concerned.

I think the real reason is that ICC and Playchess are established and the live chess functionality here was pretty poor in the beginning. I doubt that the GMs are interested in playing turn based chess (does anyone really think that Carlsen & Co. would lay down their cards in terms of preparation so they can obtain some meaningless (to them) rating here?) so the blitz and bullet functionality is what matters most.

thesexyknight

Apr 5, 2010

0

#70

Dietmar wrote:

thesexyknight wrote:

grivei wrote:

Atos wrote:

grivei wrote:

Ziryab wrote:

Well hidden? I play on a lot of websites and cannot think of another where such info is as easy to find, nor as clear both as to stipulations and enforcement.

ICC states the rules much more clearly in my opinion.

OK, so the 2800+ players here are talented amateurs, not centaurs? Might be, who knows...

By the way, how come there is no IM or GM who plays blitz games here? There are hundreds on other servers. Is there something wrong here?

You might want to join the cheating forum:

http://www.chess.com/groups/home/cheating-forum

I don't understand.

Browsing through the list of players I found that Julio Becerra, who recently won the SPICE tourney is not in the first 200 players. Are people here that good? There is another GM placed above Becerra, but he only played 9 games. Nevertheless, he is not in top 50. These two guys appear to be the only GM's in top 300 (I didn't look below).

As for blitz, it appears that no GM has ever played here. There is an IM (dpruess) who is ranked about 280.

I think a lot of GM fear playing because of how many people in this world use engines. It's a legitimate reason so far as I"m concerned.

I think the real reason is that ICC and Playchess are established and the live chess functionality here was pretty poor in the beginning. I doubt that the GMs are interested in playing turn based chess (does anyone really think that Carlsen & Co. would lay down their cards in terms of preparation so they can obtain some meaningless (to them) rating here?) so the blitz and bullet functionality is what matters most.

I don't think people just play for ratings. They do it because they love it, just like any professional at any game. Although, Tal once said "I have many vices but I'm proud to say correspondence chess is not one of them". I guess there's taboo against it. I only play here because there aren't many competitive people my age and I have yet to sign up for USCF so I can do tournaments. But once that happens I think I'll use the internet only as a tool for learning rather than play

Ziryab

Apr 5, 2010

0

#71

padman wrote:

Well, in the original statement, you had the 2 players both at 1700 and then after "many years" the first returns to tournament play while the second had been playing every weekend. The assumption that any person has to take away from that is that the 1700 player, all else being equal, will become rusty in that period, while the second stays sharp.

Except that in the statement to which you refer, which was a quote from Mark Glickman, the "first player"--the one returning after many years--defeated the "second player"--the one playing every weekend.

The assumption of "rust" that you see was something you brought to the text, not something you found there. Prior to posting that comment of Glickman's, I had mentioned my own USCF correspondence rating which is based on games played 1996-1999, and no reflection whatsoever on my play in the past ten years. During this "inactive" period, I have been playing in dozens of other venues and have played more than 40,000 games, including well over 500 at correspondence time controls.

Ziryab

Apr 5, 2010

0

#72

grivei wrote:

It's fascinating to see people with no background in statistics discussing the differences between ELO and Glicko :)

You've been reading our resumes and college transcripts?

Ziryab

Apr 5, 2010

0

#73

thesexyknight wrote:

Schachgeek wrote:

It's equally funny to see statisticians talk about chess, as if they were knowledgeable.

They're knowledgable about the numbers, not the chess.... Numbers don't lie :D. Yay numbers!

Numbers can be wholly truth and fully reliable without having the shred of a beginning of relevance. Sometimes lies are preferred.

orangehonda

Apr 5, 2010

0

#74

Ziryab wrote:

grivei wrote:

It's fascinating to see people with no background in statistics discussing the differences between ELO and Glicko :)

You've been reading our resumes and college transcripts?

Not very nice to call his bluff... although I guess it's obvious he hasn't read them...

"Hey you're not a pilot! -- I know every pilot in the world."

NM TheOldReb

Apr 6, 2010

0

#75

Schachgeek wrote:

Lievin wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but to compare USCF (or FIDE) ratings with CC ratings or Live Chess ratings is to compare completely different things.

- USCF / FIDE ratings refer to games played incertain conditions: long games, certain time settings, no databases available, "live" play ...

- CC ratings refer to games played in other conditions: databases are allowed, time rules are different, no "live" play ...

- And Live Chess ratings normally refer to fast games (1 to 20 minutes?), so time rules are again very different than in USCF/FIDE, ...

So, I believe than it is not possible at all to find any kind of conversion between USCF/FIDE, CC and Live Chess ratings as they refer to games played in totally different conditions.

This is what my common sense tells me; I may be wrong and any experienced player can, of course, correct me.

P.D.: BTW, I strongly believe that it is a mistake to refer to USCF/FIDE ratings as "real life". CC is also "real life": it is chess played in certain conditions and rules. CC is not "fake" or "simulation" of "real chess". This is how I see the whole matter.

You are quite correct.

Correspondence chess is just as real as otb play.

I completely disagree with this and only someone who hasnt played much otb ( real ) chess could believe this.

Ziryab

Apr 6, 2010

0

#76

grivei wrote:

Ziryab wrote:

grivei wrote:

It's fascinating to see people with no background in statistics discussing the differences between ELO and Glicko :)

You've been reading our resumes and college transcripts?

No, but I guess that, if you have something meaningful to say about improving the model, Mr. Glickman would be more than happy to talk with you directly.

Did I say anything to indicate that I might have some improvements in mind?

Atos

Apr 6, 2010

0

#77

Ziryab wrote:

padman wrote:

Well, in the original statement, you had the 2 players both at 1700 and then after "many years" the first returns to tournament play while the second had been playing every weekend. The assumption that any person has to take away from that is that the 1700 player, all else being equal, will become rusty in that period, while the second stays sharp.

Except that in the statement to which you refer, which was a quote from Mark Glickman, the "first player"--the one returning after many years--defeated the "second player"--the one playing every weekend.

The assumption of "rust" that you see was something you brought to the text, not something you found there. Prior to posting that comment of Glickman's, I had mentioned my own USCF correspondence rating which is based on games played 1996-1999, and no reflection whatsoever on my play in the past ten years. During this "inactive" period, I have been playing in dozens of other venues and have played more than 40,000 games, including well over 500 at correspondence time controls.

All right, but there does seem to be an assumption that someone's playing strength must have shifted drastically, whether downwards or upwards, during a period of ostensible inactivity or absence. That doesn't have to be the case.

Ziryab

Apr 6, 2010

0

#78

Atos wrote:

Ziryab wrote:

padman wrote:

Well, in the original statement, you had the 2 players both at 1700 and then after "many years" the first returns to tournament play while the second had been playing every weekend. The assumption that any person has to take away from that is that the 1700 player, all else being equal, will become rusty in that period, while the second stays sharp.

Except that in the statement to which you refer, which was a quote from Mark Glickman, the "first player"--the one returning after many years--defeated the "second player"--the one playing every weekend.

The assumption of "rust" that you see was something you brought to the text, not something you found there. Prior to posting that comment of Glickman's, I had mentioned my own USCF correspondence rating which is based on games played 1996-1999, and no reflection whatsoever on my play in the past ten years. During this "inactive" period, I have been playing in dozens of other venues and have played more than 40,000 games, including well over 500 at correspondence time controls.

All right, but there does seem to be an assumption that someone's playing strength must have shifted drastically, whether downwards or upwards, during a period of ostensible inactivity or absence. That doesn't have to be the case.

There is an assumption that the skills might have changed significantly; that a rating of an inactive player is not a reliable predictor of performance.

Hammerschlag

Apr 6, 2010

0

#79

RetGuvvie98 wrote:

schachgeek posted:

"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)."

this might be very accurate. I would speculate: Reb hasn't played USCF postal since he moved overseas many years ago, nor has he played ICCF chess for quite a few years either. During those years, his skill has risen well above his previous playing level. That his USCF rating is about the same as his FIDE rating is because USCF "adjusted" to the higher of either rating a while back. Reb is primarily active over the board, and that means FIDE events, not USCF events as he lives in Europe.

Due to the ability of all users (capability/encouraged behavior) to analyze at depth in turn-based Chess.com games, they are more like correspondence games - in that the player's rating might be considerably higher than his/her OTB rating.... it is entirely likely that schachgeek's estimate of his potential 'high' rating is quite accurate.

essentially: concur.

If this is true, and I am not arguing that it is not, then Chess.com has players rated 500 to 700 over what they would be otb; actually I think this maybe the case which if applied to me, I would be around 1200 to 1400 otb which sounds about right to me. What I think really makes a mess of the whole internet rating is that people do cheat and use computers to play for them and thus earn a rating that is not true, which then brings up the average ratings up over where it should be. (Let's not argue about the cheating because that's not why I'm posting here, and we all know it happens, that is why people get banned; anyway, I wish people would just play and have fun and not use engines to have to beat people just so they can feel good about themselves as it proves nothing). Maybe the question that should be ask in relation to how inflated the ratings are on this site compared to otb, is...should there be an adjustment made to the current ratings of all individuals on the site to make it more in line with otb ratings? Like they did with womens ratings once, they added 100 points to everyone elses ratings except for Judit.

Ricardo_Morro

Apr 6, 2010

0

#80

It might be useful to look at percentiles. All the rating systems necessarily follow bell-shaped curves.