Converting Chess.com to USCF

That would mean my OTB standard rating would be less than 500. I'm not the most amazing chess player the planet has ever seen, but there is no way I'm 300-500. However, I agree with the rapid calculation. I would imagine the most accurate formula would be geometric as opposed to arithmetic, as increased ratings would call for nonlinear calculations.

I suspect my rules-of-thumb don't work well on the upper and lower ends of the rating curve. I think another problem with rating accuracy here is that the vast majority of rated players on chess.com are not playing seriously.

I suspect they just don't work well at all.

You have an 900-1100 point difference between online and standard.

Average blitz is 1087, average online 1342, less than a 300 point difference.

Not sure where you're getting 800/900 point difference between online and otb - have played a lot of players and don't think I've ever seen quite that sharp a difference - at any point of the rating scale.

There is absolutley positively no way to determine what your USCF rating will be based on ANY online ratings.

The only way to know is to go and play.

Don't know if this is helpful, but my USCF is 1830 and my chess.com standard floats around 1600.

I've played CC chess since well before 'engines' were competitive (I created and managed the rating list for Chess-L on BitNet in the 80's), and the pool of CC players here on chess.com is the worst I've ever encountered when viewed in the context of their ELO-style ratings. An 1800-CC here isn't even 1300-OTB in quality of play. Really, really, really, bad CC players here. 1800-CC's here routinely miss simple pins, hung pieces, one-move mates ... 1300-OTB's are not that weak. Okay, I'll revise my estimate to -500 to -600.

Too many rating increases here come for doing nothing except watching your games being abandoned or played with extreme carelessness. That is not chess.com's fault ... it's the nature of the population that visits the site.

Steve, I never played correspondence chess, but I do see what you're saying about Online Chess here. I am really surprised when I play a higher rated opponent and they make mistakes you wouldn't even expect to see in live chess. When this happens I Chechnya their profile a quite often they are playing 40, 60 or 100 games. ( this I really don't get).

I don't either! Last round of a CC tourney here I was playing someone who had more than 200 active games. The effort I put into analyzing the opening was almost a total waste -- afterward I realized all I really had to do was play passively and wait for the big blunder. He was in the 1700's.

To be fair, it may be that he enjoys making a lot of CC moves each day and is satisfied with his play. Nothing wrong with that in itself.

I wonder what the chess.com CC rating curve would look like if limited to players with 20+, 50+, or 100+ completed games.

Forgot to mention,this works better for people under 2000.

And for most people this is accurate,not all. 

More like it's not accurate at all.

The USCF rating algorithm has a provision for underrated or rapidly improving players.  It gives "bonus points" if your performance exceeds what is expected.  If you are 400 or 500 points underrated, it will only take two or three tournaments to bring your rating up to speed.

For what it's worth, my USCF rating is 1300, my live chess rating is 1500, and my on-line rating is 1600.  I think that any of correlations that exist have such a large margin of error that they are meaningless.

No doubt about that but as I suspected, you're trying to make a point rather than be accurate. There are only 300 points difference between average blitz and online.

Also, your rating should be higher if 1800's are so bad.

I play CC here at about 1 game a month on average; I haven't been here long enough to settle my rating. It likely never will settle, since I have no desire to increase my play rate.

Looking through your games, I would estimate your USCF rating to be about 1900. Maybe higher.

*For the OP --

Your rating looks to be about 1000.  So Live with It.

Your thread is a massive waste of time, and chockablock with blather.  Give it Up, please.

If your overly impatient OTB, you're probably weaker than 1000, and that will show up when you start playing in regular tournaments.

It will probably take 3 to 4 months, (and roughly the same number of OTB tournaments) for your rating to stabilize, in any case.

Good Luck with It.

The only reason the USCF rating even goes below 1000 is because the Federation panders to kids.  Ratings below 1000 are essentially meaningless.  Many kids jump from 500 to 1500 in about 1 year.  That's yet another reason why NO ONE should start below USCF 1000.

Whatever.

FYI, the head of FIDE believes he was abducted by aliens, and chessplayers (woldwide) are a rather eccentric lot.  Myself included.

@zborg ... Ambassador for new-to-chess people, everywhere.

Somebody has to do public service announcements.

It's a thankless job.  Kinda like being President of your HOA.

It's a tough game, anyway.

You are entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that your post was a waste of time. I also think that the alien abduction story was a hairbrained publicity stunt.