whats equivalent to chess.com and uscf rating?

catfishman_incel

Preggo_Basashi wrote:

Yeah, I mean, people have gotten to GM strength (or close) without playing in 1 tournament ever.

IIRC Ronen Har-zvi got his GM title only a few years after starting tournament chess.

If you play a lot of titled players / friends at coffee shops, then you'll of course improve a lot and tournaments, while different, aren't much different.

yes because they studied in and out, i personally had chess books and coaches to help me play and understand the game, those people are able to play in continuous tournaments because they able to, going to chess tournaments takes time, effort, and money.

DigitalStrike

I got to page 3 of this thread and stopped reading because the argument is beyond ridiculous. There is no direct correlation between OTB and online play. None. Period. The only similarity is that stronger players will have higher ratings while weaker players have lower ratings, and this is beyond obvious to anyone. However, I will argue the point made that online chess is bad for your game. If you study the game seriously and play countless blitz games along with your rapid/classical games, those blitz games will certainly add to your intuitive prowess. I'm not saying blitz will make you better - far from it. BUT, again, with correct study it is a useful tool. It's also a great way to try out a new repertoire quickly, although you would need to player longer games as well. As to ratings, there have been articles, one at least that I can think of, right here on chess.com that shows the average difference between players who are FIDE/USCF rated and their online blitz ratings, but that does NOT mean there is any correlation between online and OTB ratings.

Preggo_Basashi
DigitalStrike wrote:

I stopped reading because the argument is beyond ridiculous

Me too.

I'm about to untrack this topic for the 2nd time.

 

 

 

DigitalStrike wrote:

  There is no direct correlation between OTB and online play. 

Aaaaaand this is why. People who have utterly no idea what they're talking about.

 

 

 

null

fissionfowl
Preggo_Basashi wrote:

Anyway, last time I checked the chess.com top 6 were all in the real world top 10, and most people are within a few 100 points so... even if the reasoning seems strange to you, it's reality that you can estimate your OTB by knowing how well you do online and vice versa. For many reasons you mentioned, I agree that there is no conversion formula.

Beat me to it.

madratter7

Clearly many of the respondents here simply are not using the word correlation in the strict statistical sense. What most of them really mean is that the r value is low (near zero).

zborg

The last 5 hours of posts have delineated endless exceptions, plenty of bait-and-switch faulty logic, and the usual amount of OCD chessnut musings.  Top it off with Bobby T's narcissistic video currently running on YouTube, June 29th, and what you have is just another normal day on this crazy-arse chess site.

 

FYI -- My online ratings and OTB ratings have tracked each other within 100-200 points for the past eight years.  They have fluctuated by as much as 200 points, up and down, but they have also largely moved in tandem.  This covers speeds of Game in 5/5, and 10/5 online, and includes OTB Games at Game in 30m/d5 and Game in 120m/d5.  Prior to that, I played about a decade of OTB play at standard USCF time controls, roughly 5-hours per game.  Poor sample size?  Hardly.

 

I keep my identity on this site anonymous, preferring privacy, So No One Need Believe Me.

But damn, the amount of blather regarding "NO CORRELATIONS!" in the posts above is truly breathtaking.  WTF kind of Kool Aid have some of you guys been drinking??  grin.png

Taskinen
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Taskinen wrote:

Of course there is a correlation. Both are ratings used to measure ones capability in playing chess. Generally, if you take a large enough sample of players, and compare their FIDE, USCF, chess.com, Lichess, ICC (or whatever chess rating/site), you'll notice the correlation. Generally people who have high rating in one, have also high rating in other one(s), as long as they have played enough games of that type. Same thing with people who are low rated.

And stop giving examples of someone you know, who is very good in OTB chess and does horribly online or vice versa. That is not how statistics work. There are always exemptions, but with large enough sample, there will be a correlation. With something like chess ratings, the correlation between different rating systems is obvious. Assuming there is no correlation (or very little) would mean that it's a coincidence, that the highest rated players in any chess site are grandmaster titled players (meaning also the highest rated FIDE/USCF players). Of course it is not.

If you take a random person, and have him play equal amount of games (let's say 100+) on ICC, chess.com, Lichess, USCF rated tournaments and FIDE rated tournaments, his ratings will most likely follow fairly closely, adjusted to the strength of the playing pool and the rating system in place. So to put simply, with the correlation compared to FIDE as is, Lichess ratings are inflated at the lower spectrum (sub 1500, due to 1500 starting rating), chess.com ratings are deflated at lower spectrum and inflated at the top. There have been numerous case studies made, which all point towards that direction.

Last time I recall that chess.com blitz rating (with hundreds of games played) is the most closely correlated chess.com rating to FIDE and USCF ratings.

     People who have no idea what real chess is can't understand it.

Online chess is a videogame. It doesn't matter what rating you have. Real chess has completely different problems that a lot of them have to do with personality.

   Those who have never played real chess, or who have played but only in lower levels can't understand the lack of correlation. All the rest can.

   I have seen more than 10 kids the last 5 years coming to the club with over 2200 online blitz rating and none of them did over 50% in his first tournament(11 rounds Swiss, average rating from  1450-1550). 2 of them disappeared after the first defeats.

   Those who stayed needed at least a year and a lot of training to get over 1700. Note that kids who started online are far more difficult to improve as they acquire a lot of bad habits and have listened to a lot of nonsense that they need to forget. And that is no exception, it's the rule!

    

     I will repeat, online chess is a videogame , it's not real chess. There is no correlation between a score in a videogame and real life performance but how one that has no idea of real chess can understand that? He can't.

     


I'm not quite sure if you understand what correlation means. It doesn't mean that everyone who is good at online chess will be good at OTB chess, nor vice versa. Correlation means there is dependence in two different measured statistics. In statistics it means that once you take a big enough sample size, you will see that the ratings do indeed correlate. Take 1000 people who have established OTB rating and online rating (with enough games). If there is no correlation, it would mean that it's just as likely that person with high OTB rating can have very low or very high online rating. You don't need to play chess OTB to know that it's not the case. Majority of people (who play both OTB and online) with high OTB rating have high online rating and vice versa. Just because you know few kids, who did much better in one or the other environment, doesn't mean that the different chess rating pools wouldn't correlate on grand scale. It's weird that I even have to explain that...

Like I said previously, there have been numerous case studies, where people have collected data from players online and OTB ratings and proven there is correlation (and it's even very clear one).

Taskinen
BobbyTalparov wrote:
fissionfowl wrote:

I will happily believe there's no correlation as soon as someone can provide a convincing reply to this (which so far no one has):

"Assuming there is no correlation (or very little) would mean that it's a coincidence, that the highest rated players in any chess site are grandmaster titled players (meaning also the highest rated FIDE/USCF players). Of course it is not."

This is a bit of a misconception.  It is assuming that higher rated players OTB having higher ratings online (and conversely, lower rated players OTB having lower online ratings) demonstrates a correlation.  To some extent, it is true; however, the strength of that correlation is very weak.  Meaning, the margin of error in determining what your OTB rating is based on your online rating is so large that the result is meaningless.  Thus, this quote you keep touting as a "refutation" is nothing of the sort.  It is simply demonstrating that stronger players tend to have higher ratings; weaker players tend to have lower ratings.  It does nothing to support the notion that an online rating of X would roughly equate to a rating of Y OTB.

 

Going back to the example I gave earlier (using an online rating of 1500):

 

Assuming +/- 100 range:  Means we are roughly 68% sure your rating will be somewhere between 1400 and 1600.

 

Assuming +/- 200 range:  Means we are roughly 85% sure your rating will be somewhere between 1300 and 1700.

 

Assuming +/- 300 range:  means we are roughly 90% sure your rating will be somewhere between 1200 and 1800.

 

To give you an idea on why these ranges are meaningless:

 

A 1600 is expected to score ~76% of the points against a 1400.

A 1700 is expected to score ~90% of the points against a 1300.

A 1800 is expected to score ~97% of the points against a 1200.

 

Even on the low end (1 standard deviation either direction), the lower rating in the range is drastically different in skill level in comparison to the higher rating in the range.


You are mixing up statistical correlation and the possibility to draw individual conclusions from said statistics. The correlation between online, FIDE, USCF and whatever ratings is not very weak, it's actually very strong. Again, this has been proven multiple times, when comparing large enough sample size of peoples ratings in different rating pools.

However, there are always exceptions to every statistic, and indeed a player could do much better in either OTB or online chess, and thus have quite a big difference in those two ratings. But on average majority of players have OTB and online ratings following in tandem (of course adjusted to the average rating system in place). And you are right in sense, that there is no way to make a conversion that if your chess.com blitz rating is 1400, then your OTB rating is around 1500. But that has nothing to do with whether these ratings have correlation or not. I know it's semantics at this point, but you can't claim that the correlation is weak just because it's not possible to make a fool-proof conversion between two ratings, if person has only one of them rated.

catfishman_incel

people here talking about how online chess is nothing like real otb chess is like talking about how spectators watching sports fights and analyzing them without ever experiencing it themselves. most people here probably never played in any otb chess let alone coffee shop chess.

Taskinen

Ok, so if we have 100 players who all have established rating on chess.com, but have never played OTB chess, and as a test we put them to play a tournament against each other OTB. Let's say 25 of the players have 2000+ online rating, while 25 of the players have 1750 online rating, 25 of the players have 1500 and 25 of the players have 1250. Assuming there is no correlation between OTB and online chess, we should expect that approximately 5 players from each rating range score in the top 20, as well as in the bottom 20. Does someone seriously believe that?

Or maybe the majority of 2000+ rated online players will be in top 20, with maybe few occasional lower rated players, who happen to be either playing a surprisingly good tournament (or just be genuinely better in OTB situations), and majority of 1250 rated players will be in bottom 20, with maybe occasional higher rated player who can't handle OTB situation. That wouldn't only prove that there is obvious correlation between OTB and online ratings, BUT also causality between OTB and online playing skills.

I'd go with the latter, but ya'll free to argue.

Taskinen
BobbyTalparov wrote:
Taskinen wrote:

You are mixing up statistical correlation and the possibility to draw individual conclusions from said statistics. The correlation between online, FIDE, USCF and whatever ratings is not very weak, it's actually very strong. Again, this has been proven multiple times, when comparing large enough sample size of peoples ratings in different rating pools.

However, there are always exceptions to every statistic, and indeed a player could do much better in either OTB or online chess, and thus have quite a big difference in those two ratings. But on average majority of players have OTB and online ratings following in tandem (of course adjusted to the average rating system in place). And you are right in sense, that there is no way to make a conversion that if your chess.com blitz rating is 1400, then your OTB rating is around 1500. But that has nothing to do with whether these ratings have correlation or not. I know it's semantics at this point, but you can't claim that the correlation is weak just because it's not possible to make a fool-proof conversion between two ratings, if person has only one of them rated.

There is a lot of incorrect stuff in your post, but I'll focus on the part that is pertinent to the topic at hand.

 

The correlation is weak because the margin of error is wide.  Saying "an online rating of X would mean a OTB rating of X +/- 300 points" saying (literally) "your OTB rating would be within 6 standard deviations around your online rating".  That is, you can lump 95% of the entire population into the same grouping!  When you graph such a distribution, the error bars cover most of the area!

 

You see the same kind of distribution for ELO estimators (e.g. elometer.net).  If you make the range wide enough, you can never be wrong.


Not sure where you got that +-300 points thing, with chess.com blitz especially it's on average much closer than that. The standard deviations are within +-200. I know 400 points is a lot, but the point never was to claim that one could deviate one rating from another. But you can get estimates, which apply to vast majority of the players, and bigger the sample the smaller the variation is. The whole debate was whether there was correlation between the statistics or not (and it's 0.7+ on 0 to 1 scale, that's quite clear correlation). And in a sense it's also useable to compare the relative strengths of two different rating pools.

How much use is there for an individual interested in what their FIDE or USCF might be? Not all that much, but getting a +-200 points estimation on high probability is better than nothing.

macer75

As this user explains quite concisely, the mainstream theory thus far, generally referred to as the "rule of adding 700," is that one's FIDE rating is typically somewhere around one's blitz rating on chess.com + 700. For instance, if someone has a blitz rating of 1800 on chess.com, you can expect that person to have a FIDE rating of around 2500.

torrubirubi
DeirdreSkye wrote:
torrubirubi wrote:
Skye spend hours in a website where people play online chess, arguing that online chess is...bad.

Hmmmm

     That is your argument? Sometimes (actually every time) you make me laugh.

   I have spend many hours in a bar drinking beer. Should I claim it's a good thing?

   I have spend a lot of hours doing many other meaningless nonsense(reading magazines, newspapers, just sitting, cooking things that couldn't be eaten, planting things that grow to become some very weird greenish things , etc. ). Should I claim that all these are good things and everybody must waste his time like I did? Or should I claim they are serious business and they are much better than watching a good theatrical play or reading a good book?

   Man , you really are funny.

And he is still around... arguing against online chess...in a website where people enjoy playing online...

I am glad to make you laugh my friend.

torrubirubi
BobbyTalparov wrote:
Taskinen wrote:
 

Not sure where you got that +-300 points thing, with chess.com blitz especially it's on average much closer than that. The standard deviations are within +-200. I know 400 points is a lot, but the point never was to claim that one could deviate one rating from another. But you can get estimates, which apply to vast majority of the players, and bigger the sample the smaller the variation is. The whole debate was whether there was correlation between the statistics or not (and it's 0.7+ on 0 to 1 scale, that's quite clear correlation). And in a sense it's also useable to compare the relative strengths of two different rating pools.

How much use is there for an individual interested in what their FIDE or USCF might be? Not all that much, but getting a +-200 points estimation on high probability is better than nothing.

First, the standard deviation of the Glicko/ELO system is 100 points.  The post you are referring to is not using "standard deviation" in terms of statistical analysis (it is just the average difference from the chess.com rating and the user's self-reported FIDE rating - which is not always accurate).  He is also looking at more people on the high end of the rating ladder (as the mean for each is much higher than it should be - granted, FIDE's mean is higher than it should be naturally since they do not rate below 1000, so even though their system is designed to have a mean of 1200, it will actually be ~1600-1800 simply because they self-skew the data).

 

The issue I have is with the "estimates" (as I've said several times).  If your range is +/- 2-3 standard deviations (i.e. +/- 200-300 points), the estimate is meaningless as you are basically including more than 85-90% of the possible range as their "estimated" range.  Even +/- 1 standard deviation covers 68% of the possible range.  Put another way:  If you go to your doctor and ask "what is the likelihood I have cancer?"  and he replies with "well, there is a 20% chance +/- 70%", it answers your question by telling you nothing.

 

People getting choked up over "well, higher OTB ratings usually means higher online ratings so obviously there is some correlation" are missing the point.  The correlation coefficient is closer to .5 than it is to 1.0.  So yes, it is somewhat correlated, but the correlation is so weak that any attempt to derive conclusions from it (e.g. estimates going either way) are meaningless; the confidence interval is simply too large.

 

If you could find a higher correlation coefficient for something like X + Y +/- (.5 * SD) (e.g. 1500 + 100 +/- 50 = [1550, 1650]) it would at least be somewhat useful.

 

The correlation gets even more distorted when you look at specific sub-sections (e.g. if you look at just the GMs and compare their FIDE rating to their online blitz ratings ... you see some 2500s with 2800+ ratings, with others having sub-2300 ratings - and there are usually reasons for that that go well beyond their playing strength).

Hey Bobby, as I can see you understand something about the topic.