What should be rating here for A class player or expert ? - Chess Forums - Page 2

MyNameIsAdis · 2015-01-04T20:27:48-08:00

I wonder what is chess rating for expert or A class chess player ? Of course I think on standard rating, because blitz rating is not important.

Jenium

Jul 26, 2015

0

#21

GreedyPawnEater wrote:

GMaspirant2015 wrote:

Who are good at blitz also good at OTB. All the masters can play blitz very well.

Only weak players play blitz. Serious players dont waste time with such silly things.

Sure, here are some of those patzers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4IeJNYlzWs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0749jCB2IQ8

Jenium

Jul 26, 2015

0

#22

Game_of_Pawns wrote:

Jenium wrote:

You are right that standard ratings here are really unreliable. People have really crazy standard ratings which say little about their actual skill level. So my guess 2100-2300 is, indeed, not very accurate...Blitz is the only rating here that comes close to someone's chess skill.

Your statement ("At the level of play that the OP is curious about, both the blitz and standard ratings on this website should be very close to the player's actual FIDE rating. 2K blitz or 2K standard ~ 2K FIDE.") doesn't make any sense. 90% of all players here have a Blitz rating that is 400 points below their standard rating. Including you!

What are you talking about? I never said anything about standard rating here being highly unreliable. I believe the exact opposite. As for lower rated players such as myself having higher standard than blitz ratings, that is true. At the higher levels, it isn't.

Believing in the reliability of standard ratings here, is like convincing yourself that you are actually a decent chess player...

Clopin

Jul 26, 2015

0

#23

Jenium is completely wrong, and it can be proven by looking at people's USCF/FIDE and live standar ratings together. They nearly always match up well. Blitz however is heavily deflated with even titled players often only managing a bit over 2000.

NM Zigwurst

Jul 26, 2015

0

#24

At 1903 USCF my chess.com blitz rating hovers around 1750-1800.

Clopin

Jul 26, 2015

0

#25

And after 300 games your live standard is 1850, sounds about right.

kleelof

Jul 26, 2015

0

#26

Game_of_Pawns wrote:

Actually, there have been a lot of threads/posts in the past that have used stats to clearly show that of all the ratings on this site, Blitz ratings have the strongest correlation to OTB ratings. I'm not going to spend any time trying to dig any of them up right now, but you can.

They are all flawed and the numbers you get don't mean what you and many others seem to think they do.

kleelof

Jul 26, 2015

0

#27

Clopin wrote:

"Says the 1300 blitz player"

Uh huh, I quite literally only play Blitz when I'm too tired or drunk, or whatever else to actually play chess but I still want to move pieces around. Aside from that having a low blitz rating doesn't make you stupid, that's a pretty absurd notion. What does make you stupid is saying any of the following things:

1. Your blitz rating will be lower because you have less time to think. (Totally ridiculous statement since the time control impacts every player in the rating pool, though it could be accurate for individuals it won't be statistically relevant)

2. "No ratings are accurate because they only measure limited pools xD" (This one is so stupid and it's repeated in every single thread about ratings. Look morons, if I play at a local USCF rated club with the same thirty to fifty players why in God's name would my rating be more accurate than playing on live chess standard with hundreds of thousands of players? Sometimes there are aberrations in rating pools, like with the prison population but generally your live chess standard rating is a very good indicator of your orb rating)

3. Chess.com blitz ratings are inflated compared to USCF orb ratings. (no, they are deflated, often by several hundreds of points though it does depend on the individual)

#1 I agree with.

#2 The problem here is you are using the word 'accurate' to describe the rating. A rating is ONLY ACCURATE IN THE POOL IT WAS EARNED. So no rating is actually more accurate than any other.

The pool you are playing in DOES make a difference. Lets say I created 2 pools of players. All of them have established FIDE ratings. And lets say I have an established FIDE rating of 1600.

One pool only has players rated 0 - 1600, the other has players rated 1601 and higher.

If I played in the first pool, my rating would be much higher than 1600 because I have a higher skill level than most of the other players. If I played in the second pool, my rating would be lower than 1600 because most of the players have a higher skill than me.

And both ratings would be accurate in their respective pools.

It really is basic statistical evaluation.

People who come along and talk about one pool's ratings being 'inflated' or 'deflated' is comparing the numbers in one direction only. If you cannot reverse the comarisons and get consistant results, than the numbers are wrong to begin with.

#3 - Refer to my response to #2.

Jenium

Jul 26, 2015

0

#28

Clopin wrote:

Jenium is completely wrong, and it can be proven by looking at people's USCF/FIDE and live standar ratings together. They nearly always match up well. Blitz however is heavily deflated with even titled players often only managing a bit over 2000.

What a funny coincidence that most people here who claim that online standard ratings are representative for OTB ratings have standard ratings that are 400 points higher than their blitz ratings ...

Game_of_Pawns

Jul 26, 2015

0

#29

Kleelof, that post of Clopin's that you just argued with is completely accurate. Jenium, I believe that you have reading comprehension issues.

kleelof

Jul 26, 2015

0

#30

Game_of_Pawns wrote:

Kleelof, that post of Clopin's that you just argued with is completely accurate. Jenium, I believe that you have reading comprehension issues.

If by 'compeltely accurate', you mean butt-talk based on a lack of understanding, then I would agree.

Jenium

Jul 26, 2015

0

#31

@ Game_of_Pawns: My reading comprehension is fine, thanks, I think the real issue is rather self-delusion regarding your playing strength.

Game_of_Pawns

Jul 26, 2015

0

#32

Jenium wrote:

My reading comprehension is fine, thanks, I think the real issue is rather self-delusion regarding your playing strength.

Not a single post on this thread made by myself or anybody else but you has mentioned or even eluded to my personal playing strength.

Jenium

Jul 26, 2015

0

#33

Chill. You'll get over it.

Game_of_Pawns

Jul 26, 2015

0

#34

I apologise, my last post wasn't accurate. I actually did mention my playing strength in an earlier post. I wasn't exactly egotistical about it... Perhaps you should go back and read this thread over again. You might also pick up on some of your other mistakes.

Clopin

Jul 26, 2015

0

#35

Jenium it's not a coincidence... Practically everyone has a lower blitz than standard rating (if they play enough of both) and blitz is the deflated one. Ask around, most people have comparable live standard to USCF orb. I do 't have an orb rating since I haven't completed the requisite number of games but my provisional rating a few years ago was over 1800 and I'm able to consistently beat and draw players above 1700 at my chess club. Now what's more likely that my orb rating correlates to my chess.com blitz rating of 1300ish or that it correlates to my live standard rating of 1700ish?

Find me one person who has a recent USCF rating and a live standard rating which is hundreds of points stronger than their orb rating. These people don't seem to exist, the ratings seem to match up almost exactly. However, you can easily find people whose USCF ratings are hundreds of points higher than their chess.com blitz ratings.

kleelof

Jul 26, 2015

0

#36

Clopin wrote:

Jenium is completely wrong, and it can be proven by looking at people's USCF/FIDE and live standar ratings together. They nearly always match up well. Blitz however is heavily deflated with even titled players often only managing a bit over 2000.

Perhaps you could provide the research you are reading that supports this.

Clopin

Jul 26, 2015

0

#37

Just ask people who both play live standard and orb in a USCF rating pool. Assuming both ratings are up to date they are nearly always within 100 points of one another, and usually less. There hasn't been any 'research' done on such an inane topic of course but you can easily find previous threads discussing rating where it has been shown again and again that live standard is basically the same as USCF. Also in my own anecdotal experience I have a playing strength of about 1700 otb as determined by my results against CFC rated players at my local club.

kleelof

Jul 26, 2015

0

#38

Clopin wrote:

....but you can easily find previous threads discussing rating where it has been shown again and again that live standard is basically the same as USCF.

YEs, and the data was always flawed and one directional.

In these types of statistics, if the data cannot be confirmed both ways, then it is not valid. All the posts I've seen on this only compare data one way. Probably because tyring to reverse compare it breaks their results.

I figure they also rely on the fact that most people, like yourself, are not familiar enough with stastical distrbutions and inference to realize the numbers are not accurate.

Clopin

Jul 26, 2015

0

#39

Wait what? How can live standard ratings correlate to USCF in only one direction? If I have a 1700 live standard rating and a 1750 USCF rating don't they just match? Where's the issue?

Clopin

Jul 26, 2015

0

#40

Anyway I would bet money on your standard otb rating being between 1500 and 1650 after you played enough games. Do you have a recent USCF rating btw?