It's dead easy to do a linear regression in Excel. If I had the data set I could do it in a matter of seconds.
There's no need for that nonsense. There is an average difference of 250. That's good enough for me, and good enough for everyone else. If you want more, you can do it for yourself. Quit being such a nerd.
I am offering to do it if you will provide the data set. Like I said, it is dead easy. Only takes a few more seconds than =AVERAGE()
I am offering to do it if you will provide the data set. Like I said, it is dead easy. Only takes a few more seconds than =AVERAGE()
I don't care. Come up with your own data, and independently verify it for yourself. I've proven the issue to my satisfaction, and if you have doubts, its not my job to convince you. As you yourself said, it is dead easy. So go do it, and stop trolling.
Adam has made ~100 posts in this thread attempting to convince us that he has convinced himself of this "fact", which he wants to share with us, but not for us to know anything about his evidence or methodology.
Yes, he's acting like a high school student. No, I don't think I'll contribute to his trolling anymore unless someone else comes up with data and they're willing to share it.
No, I don't think I'll contribute to his trolling anymore
Bye!
What exactly has he been discussing here for 12 pages? All I've seen is him trying to pretend he's an expert mathematican.
So you've got a nice little sample and, on average, people's ratings are a certain degree lower on chess.com compared to USCF. That's all well and good, and may even be indicative of a wider trend should you happen to have a more appropriate data set. What that categorically doesn't mean is that chess.com's ratings are deflated, as that would imply USCF ratings are the standard against which all should be measured. They're not, no rating system is. Each and every rating system is as valid as any other, as a tool for measuring how individuals under that system compare to others... under that system. People seem to have a certain fascination with translating between rating systems, but the exercise is largely futile. Any correlations that are made can never be all-encompassing, and can never remain as the sample base changes.
Surely this is trolling. The topic is so uninteresting that I'd struggle to maintain interest for 12 pages unless I was getting a shady little kick out of it.
"this -is- statistics, and there is always a mathematical relationship between any two sets of numbers"
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-10/nations-chocolate-intake-directly-correlated-number-nobel-laureates-it-spawns-not-really
When you've got a bunch of new comments to go through, it's a fine pruning tool to skip over any comment which descends into the bottom three tiers.
I like it! Personally I'd ignore the bottom four categories.
I've always thought that the underlying motivation behind people asking about how USCF or FIDE correlate with chess.com is one of:
On a related note, I think that there's a nice correlation between Tactics Trainer and ceiling potential.
I like it! Personally I'd ignore the bottom four categories.
Any time you want to find it, just google "argument pyramid".
Nope, I never implied that. All that deflated means is that chess.com ratings are lower, and they are. Its just an observation. I have no idea why you try to pretend that there is some larger issue to discuss here.
For twelve pages, I've just been repeating this simple fact: an individual with a USCF(standard) rating is likely to have a chess.com(blitz) rating which is 2-300 points lower. I have no idea why anybody chooses to argue about this, when its so patently obvious and simple to verify for yourself.
When you've got a bunch of new comments to go through, it's a fine pruning tool to skip over any comment which descends into the bottom three tiers.
But don't you have to read it to know which tier it is on? I don't like your superior tone. You are a penguin so you can't really have a valid opinion. Besides, you are a buttocks that someone would wear on their head!
(AdamRinkleff wisely sidesteps my counterargument which is hard to refute)
1) You don't have a counter-argument; I'm not sidestepping, I'm just tired of trying to explain such a simple concept to someone so dense.
2) I'm not here to argue. I've told you a fact, which you can readily verify for yourself. There is nothing to discuss.
3) If you were smarter, you'd realize that any data I show you is dubious, since I could easily just make up numbers which support what I've said.
4) Therefore, the only way for you to convince yourself, is to independently do your own calculations. Stop being lazy, and stop expecting me to do it for you.
Assuming tactics training is a potential ceiling for uscf going off of Ozzy's comment, AdamRinkleff's potential ceiling is 1326 uscf. According to my uscf being 1900 and my blitz being 2150. We can add 250 points to Adam's uscf to figure out his blitz rating. So let's do some math 1326+250= 1576. What is AdamRinkleff's blitz rating? It is 1571!
So what can we derive from my formula? Well actually Adam is not 1800 uscf like he claimed, but actually 1326 at his Peak.
Now to expose his other lies: AdamRinkleff claims he is from North Korea and that he has a Doctorate in Math. First of all no one names their child Adam in North Korea. A simple google search of AdamRinkleff leads to him being a history teacher. Why would someone with a doctorate in math be teaching history? It's quite implausible.
Essentially, everything this guy is talking about is a lie and he is not a credible person.
The correlation is actually lower than I expected. Methodology:
Selected players from list who are titled starting at top and working down until I had 30 players who had chess.com blitz ratings and were identifiable on http://www.uschess.org/component/option,com_wrapper/Itemid,181/
Averages were:
Chess.com blitz rating: 2429
USCF regular rating: 2516
...
It's dead easy to do a linear regression in Excel. If I had the data set I could do it in a matter of seconds.