chess.com ratings are deflated against USCF

  • #1041

    Because of higher gamefrequensy, and more recent games, my blitz and online chess.com rating are more up to date than my fiderating. Its 1200 blitz and 1700 online, which tells that I need much time to think, to play well.

  • #1042

    AdamRinkleff, you have a serious attitude problem!

    That being said...using a sample of 10 to draw conclusions about the population is just wrong. Second, the two pools do NOT have the same population, or even nearly the same population. Comparing FIDE with chess.com would therefore a big more accurate.

    However, I do agree that chess.com`s blitz ratings are much lower than FIDEs and USCFs classical ratings. However, I don't think this statement has any relevance, as you are comparing two completely different things. Yes, apples and oranges.

    Go work on your attitude man! This is going to make your life a lot harder! Cheers.

  • #1043

    Did you read every post in this entire thread.  It is imperative you do so, before drawing any conclusions not only about the substantive claims herein, but also of Professor von Rinkleff's "attitude."

  • #1044

    I didn't read every post because I have better things to do with my time. And yes, I can draw conclusions from his posts. He has a serious attitude problem. No wonder he has gone into academia! Those who can, do. Those wo can't, teach!

  • #1045

    My Game in 10/5, Game in 15/5, and OTB ratings are all roughly the same in the USCF universe.  On this site, I'm "deflated" between 200 to 600 points (including Bullet).

    IMHO, it's largely, b/c engine use is so much easier on this site.

    End of Story.  Just Live With It.

  • #1046

    Ooh ah! John musacha!

  • #1047

    Aaaaand, we're back.

  • #1048

    Seems like the blitz ratings are even getting more deflated.  I think they injected points into the standard ratings, but never injected points into the blitz ratings, did they?  I think your rating should reflect your relative strength to other chess players.  It should be on this scale of 600-3000.  It should have this meaning that 600-1000 is a beginner, 1000-1400 is an intermediate, a 1400-1800 is an advanced intermediate, 1800-2200 is getting into expert, and 2200 + is world class.  If the ratings don't reflect that, then I think the rating scale has failed.  It no longer reflects what meaning we attribute to it.  If a 1250 blitz player can beat 90%+ of all human chess players in 10 minute chess, then that rating is too low.

  • #1049

    ...

  • #1050

    I know it is a little off topic from the thread. But why do people now refer to math as maths (plural). It does not sound right. I hear and read it everywhere.

  • #1051

    It is short for mathematics and also correct English. Think of physics not physic. Math is more of an Americanism.

  • #1052

    True, "maths" is correct English. "Math" is correct in America.

  • #1053
  • #1054
    NRTG wrote:

    It is short for mathematics and also correct English. Think of physics not physic. Math is more of an Americanism.

    Actually, "physic" is a word, although rarely used.  "Physic" denotes a medicine, typically a cathartic.  Of course, "physic" is entirely distinct from the science of "physics."

  • #1055

    i am 1100 hundred otb 1540 chess.com does that makeouts something like that uscf average is lower that the international average(sorry mod but why do you only block comments about your nationality i have never seen you block commments like indians stink etc etc .though back to the topic maybe that is because of india has tougher competion and population.

  • #1056

    Yep, well said.

  • #1057
    PeterB1517 wrote:

    Seems like the blitz ratings are even getting more deflated.  I think they injected points into the standard ratings, but never injected points into the blitz ratings, did they?  I think your rating should reflect your relative strength to other chess players.  It should be on this scale of 600-3000.  It should have this meaning that 600-1000 is a beginner, 1000-1400 is an intermediate, a 1400-1800 is an advanced intermediate, 1800-2200 is getting into expert, and 2200 + is world class.  If the ratings don't reflect that, then I think the rating scale has failed.  It no longer reflects what meaning we attribute to it.  If a 1250 blitz player can beat 90%+ of all human chess players in 10 minute chess, then that rating is too low.

     Or you can think that rating delivers what it promises: Ability to find an opponent of similar strength. Relative measures are always just relative as trying to keep them in sync with each other is useless ans will require constantresyncs

  • #1058

    Yeah but they are still deflated in comparison to USCF.  That much is certain.

  • #1059
    deathstroke2611 wrote:

    i am 1100 hundred otb 1540 chess.com does that makeouts something like that uscf average is lower that the international average(sorry mod but why do you only block comments about your nationality i have never seen you block commments like indians stink etc etc .though back to the topic maybe that is because of india has tougher competion and population.

    You are1192 Fide, and thats another scale than Uscf.

    Comparing  your chess.com ratings you probably are close to me in strenght, which is 1435 Fide.  When Norwegian players plays abroad, I think we are getting cheap ratingpoints in Denmark and Sweden, and it looks like India is much tougher. Are there many  kids coming up in India? When the kids are coming, the ratingpoints gets more difficult to catch, because they are coming from below and are bringing less points to the board than they are taking home.

    Norway has more kids coming up than Sweden and Denmark, because of the Magnus-popularity. Therefore we are underated compared to them.

  • #1060

    India and China are FIDE rating black holes.

Top
or Join

Online Now