FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
In fact, since August of 2012 I have gained 409 rating points in USCF, while only gaining 4 rating points in FIDE.
The main problem is that USCF takes all US games into account, while FIDE only accepts games that are
a) in a FIDE rated event
b) against another FIDE rated player.
Even in FIDE rated events of 7 rounds, I may only have 3-4 games that are actually rated by FIDE.
Elubas, they speak here of FIDE 2000, not USCF 2000...
FIDE 2000 = USCF 1970, i.e. not much different but actually slightly higer FIDE than USCF at this end of the scale. This is reversed at the IM/GM end of the scale where the USCF ratings are higher than FIDE, but on average less than 100 points. The conversion formulas are given by Glickman based on all available data, but also see Shepi13's two insightful posts above.
Ok, those are the formulas, and I've seen such before, but can you give me any idea on why they would work that way? Why are ratings inflated on the higher end (e.g., someone with 2600 USCF may have 100 points less for their FIDE rating), but not at, say, 1900 level as you have just shown in your example? Does it somehow get easier to raise your USCF rating when you get to IM level or something?
I guess one problem with national rating systems such as those of USCF is that they, naturally, contain basically all American players and so forth for any other national system. But Americans on average are probably not as strong as Russians, so to get a certain USCF rating (do well against other Americans) may require less actual chess skill than it would to get the same rating under a (hypothetical, at least) Russian Chess Federation.
I can't say who would win but if i had to bet on it I would chose Kasparov.
The 2000 rated player would win and I would bet on it.
To be fair it would have to be a 6 or 10 game match.
In a 10 game match the 2000 would score about 7. Just my guess
I'm 2170 USCF and I suspect I'd probably lose such a match to Kasparov.
It depends on the time too.
With a 1/0 game, Kasparov would win easily. The 2000 Elo would be completely crushed.
With a long game (40 moves in two hours, then 1 hour k.o., for example), it could be different : the 2000 should try to exchange as many pieces as possible, and then he should win. But it will be very complicated.
Hugh. I said.
Any 2000 USCF player could beat Kasporov fairly easily if he started with an extra piece. In a ten game match the 2000 rated player would score about 8 1/2. [that is my guess]
very doubtful ...
step on up to the tables at washington square or clark parkthis has been tested for real and the expert goes down in flames 95% of the time
dzindzhi used to give ten minutes to one odds and a minor piece to people rated 2000 in the skittles roomhe won about 90% of those gameshe also used to playy at equal odds against 2000 rating strength and would tell player: you name the square and i will mate you on that square .... success rate over 50%world opens in the 1980's at the adams mark hotel in philadelphia... many witnesses
due to the older k factors, the difference between 2000 and 2200 (200 points) is not the same as the differesnce between 2400 and 2600as we go up the scale, rating points are factored differently and a 100 point gap at the top (2700) is significantly greater than it is at the expert level
Let's say a bishop, or a knight.
What do you think? (I'm asking those players who have at least such ELO)
oh the reason Kasparov was down a piece is because it is all in his calculations!lol
No - this is wrong.
K factor means that you need more games, if you are worth 2600, to get there from 2400.
However, the percentages of success are calculated the same way, 2000 to 2200, or 2400 to 2600. This means that winning or losing, will be rewarded or punished at the same rate.
If I'm 2400, but worth 2600, it will take me LONGER to get there, but it's just as certain that I do, than if I'm 2000 and worth 2200. The difference in CLASS, or winning percentage, is exactly exactly exactly the same.
About the other question, when I was playing at 1850-1900 FIDE strength, I had a few friends who were 2500+ GMs, and were pretty regular sparring partners.
One of them gave me 5:1 odds, and beat me 14:1 (!) I beat him the first game, strategically and tactically - and thereafter he adjusted his play, and it was all hopeless, game after game after game after game.
The other, with the same odds, only managed to beat me about 6:4
A third one (who was a candidate to the world championships in the eighties), giving me the same time odds as the other two, and no material advantage, lost 3 times more games than he won against me. Then he started giving me 3:1 minute time odds, and then the trend reversed.
So this is highly individual also among 2500+ GMs. Maybe Dzindzi has a special gift for speed playing. Don't underestimate the 2000 player! :-)
solskytz, he probably meant that it's harder to improve your game the more you go higher up the scale, e.g. every rating point will cost you more and more time and effort.
It's just the law of diminishing returns. A beginner can easily improve hundreds of points in a matter of months, but then it gets progressively harder.
For example I think getting from 1800 to 2000 is harder than getting from wherever you start to 1800.
You can prove it by yourself.Set up a position without a Knight (for example) against Houdini and if you can beat it, maybe you can win against Kaspárov too.
Yes Ragus, e.g. Post #164
I´ve just watched your game.
Nice! you played very solid.
I'm just posting the game from post #164:
I actually played out that final position in the game above me with 1 minute on the clock and its not exactly easy to play, it actually makes good endgame pratice against houdini because i did win one but also messed it up as well.
Its just enough of an advantage but white has enough counter play to force you to be very precise.