What would my FIDE/USCF rating be compared to my chess.com rating?

I've been wondering for a while what my FIDE rating or USCF rating compared to my chess.com rating would be. I know they're probably incomparable, but does anyone have a rough estimate? My chess.com rapid rating is 1700, so what would my actual rating be? I was supposed to go to nationals this past April to get rated, but it was cancelled because of coronavirus. If you have an answer for my question, plz post it below or message me @colorfucake! Thanks!

Not only would your FIDE rating be lower a few hundred points, but the quality of games would be much better. It's like asking what would the rating the McDonald's food you order be compared to going to a restaurant.

If you are just looking for sustenance and the pat on the back that you play chess (online, during covid, taking your master's lessons in mind, etc...) then you can pretend you are going to get somewhere by online chess.

It's a fruitless question, packed with too many irrelevant variables. What you should do is find people with FIDE ratings, play them and see how you perform. Learn from the mistakes you made.

Actually I looked at a chart and FiDE and USCF ratings are only a bit lower than chess.con ratings 

Looking at a chart to determine some convoluted equation is like finding out who poops better at the end of the day by sorting each family member's deposits in the toilet.

What is that chart going to accomplish? If people are busy one day not paying attention, family obligations, work, tired, etc... how does that compare with someone buying and preparing for a 1 game per day tournament where they have less to no distractions? 

But if looking at a chart satisfies your impatient mental cravings, you don't need to ask us.

Ok, then convince FIDE to reset everyone's FIDE rating. People will play 201 games online and get a new FIDE rating.

1489.

you know, @smarterchess HAS made a chart about this very question, and has had hundreds of participants to find a line of best fit (he did a bit more but I didn't really understand the finer points of statistics).

And also, some days you have good days and sometimes they're bad. They all average somewhere.

You are saying people who find "a line of best fit" online is a determiner of their relativeness to OTB in real life?

Again, there are too many variables. But I know chess programmers will not admit to this. They want their engine to be the best on the planet and that their algorithms somehow replace human play. 

The good day bad day thing is NOT representational of offline chess.

Yes, you may have a bad tournament, or even a day. But how are they spread out? You can play dozens of games online, but you play how many games offline?

Preparing for a tournament where you know your opponents OTB and it is vastly different than being randomly paired online and the other things that come with it. 

Let's see a set agreement. Let's see top GMs do similar commitments online as they do offline. What I mean is, schedule tournaments for the upcoming year (online), don't play other tournaments or things that just come up. At least don't use that in your statistics, but say these 6-12 tournaments are going to form the basis of your assessment. 

Get the same players, same situations as you would OTB. Then, look at the performance. Judging game results without some adherence to procedure is completely useless.

Again, we are going to have those that think they are mightier than common sense and say "OH OH look at me, I figured out this formula that explains everything".

Yea right.

They are exactly the same. You can go visit the Magical Man from Happy-Land, in a gumdrop house on Lollipop Lane and trade in your online rating points for FIDE points. It's like bitcoin but for chess players.

both players in an OTB tourney prepare for each other.

both players in a random online match don't. 

I see it as a complete win.

What do you see as a win? Preparing or playing randomly?

So far, I am not seeing random events. I am seeing Magnus selectively picking strong players for his events and same here on chess.com.

Where is the randomness?

Let's say you prepare and try your best and play enough tournaments to establish a steady rating out of provisional, you'd probably expect to land somewhere in the 1600 USCF, 1500 FIDE region +/- 200 points depending how well you do. Of course online chess and classical OTB chess are very different, but assuming you take some time to get used to OTB and time controls it would be very unlikely for you to score either much higher or lower than those estimates based on the rating correlation and hundreds of cases of evidence. That doesn't mean it is 100% certain or that you would score exactly at say 1600 rating after your first tournaments, but statistically one could expect a high confidence for you to land on that general area rating wise.

Of course the only way to find out is to play OTB, but perhaps that gives you a starting point for deciding which level tournaments you should participate in and what level of training materials and books would be suitable to your level (since they're usually classified in terms of OTB ratings). It would probably be smart to expect scoring slightly under your expectations if you're just starting out OTB as all the necessary skills (2d to 3d vision, time management, possible anxiety and concentration) don't necessarily translate 1 to 1 from online to OTB.

A bit lower but not by hundreds of points. Maybe by 100 points. 1700 FIDE isn't an amazingly high rating but it is about mediocre to Ok club player strength.

How is the chess.com rating calculated? How does it differ from an elo rating? Anyone know? Thanks.

You cannot say for sure of course. My OTB is about 600 pts lower than my online rating, but that is probably on the high side. I don't think many people have better OTB ratings.