chess.com ratings are deflated against USCF

@zborg I bow to your superior knowledge.

@FirebrandX I am lucky to live in an area which has even g/60, plus a local club with a dedicated space, and the standard time controls which follow. Unluckily for me, I am a tiny bit too unlocal to attend more than once per year. The other thing is the large CCA swiss events, which are superbly organized, if a bit inaccessible.

@Ozzie and @Firebrand -- both of you bring great judgment and common sense to these crazy food fights.

Thank you, and Keep up the Good Work.  We are indebteded to you. 

And, IF you don't live in a decent sized city in the United States, THEN it's difficult to find tournaments, UNLESS you're willing to incur travel expenses, AND you can survive pissing off your wife, AS you consume your weekends playing chess. 

Bertand Russell, would love that run-on-conditional syllogism.

As for the so-called "rating deflation," of this thread -- 1600 is roughly the top 20th percentile of the USCF distribution, while 1600 is the top 10th percentile (or higher) on Chess.com.  And both systems are based on GLICKO algorithms (cf. Mark Glickman's web page).

But frankly, who cares!

There are a thousand and one caveats to make the comparison less than ideal.  Hence this crazy food-fighting thread.

I have a lot of tournaments , I travel throghout my states and also multiple ones.

Actually, I would guess that a chess.com blitz rating does tend to be lower than a USCF OTB standard rating.   It is completely inaccurate to speak of this as inflation or deflation, as it is two separate systems.  The chess.com rating system is set up so that the average rating is 1200.  The average person playing blitz on chess.com is probably stronger than a 1200 USCF rating.  you have to be a fairly strong player to consider playing blitz.  A 1200 USCF player has a hard time not making blunders with standard time controls and would not be attracted to blitz play.  The abundance of cheaters using engines online would also keep the online ratings lower.  While there is some cheating in OTB play it is microscopic compared to online blitz play.

All deflated means is "less than" or "smaller".

It is completely inaccurate to speak of one rating system as being deflated against another. To say so gives a strong implication that one rating system is the 'true' rating system against which the other is deflated against. It would be like saying one currency is deflated against another. Completely meaningless. Currencies can only deflate with respect to themselves. Unless there is a 'true' currency out there which other currencies are deflating against?

Why are you trying to invent an argument where none exists? Get a life, and stop being such a geek.

There is.  It's called the dollar.

What bigpoison said. Let's not pretend the world is something it's not.

Oh, no. Flashbacks to treasury fx classes.

So dull. Every once in a while they had a cool chart, though.

"Get a life, and stop being such a geek."

Probably not bad advice... but hey at least I haven't been discussing the correspondence of two chess rating systems for 17 pages.

And yet... here you are?

Not for 17 pages, he's a newcomer.

Going to the currency analogy, its not the same as rating system because you can exchange different types of currencies.  If you say that one currency is deflating against another it does not mean that numerical rate of exchange is lower, it means that exchange rate is changing over a period of time.

Please leave aside the foreign exchange and currency metaphors.  Doesn't apply here.

Here's something about which we could speculate, luxuriously --

With 651,000 players in the Standard Rating Distribution, why are there only (roughly) 100 players rated above 2050?  Seems odd, when compared to the other distributions.

Below is the rough data from the various rating distributions on the site. 

**********************************************************************

275K = Standard CC, with roughly 3000 players above a 2050 rating.

50K = 960 Chess, with 50 players above 2050.

**********************************************************************

493K = Bullet, with 1600 players above 2050.

1.110 million = Blitz, with roughly 3000 players above a 2050 rating.

651K = Standard, with (only) 100 players above 2050.

http://www.chess.com/echess/players

**********************************************************************

The relatively small number of strong players, in the relatively large pool of Standard Live Chess players, JUMPS OUT AT YOU, doesn't it not?

Amazing grist for speculation, I believe.

Inquiring Minds Want to Know. 

That does seem a bit odd.

Somebody please post the link to the rating distributions on the site.  I can't seem to locate it, but that's where the data came from.

All you have to do is drag your cursor across the distributions, and add up a few numbers.  It's a fairly simple, back of the envelope calculation.

http://www.chess.com/echess/players

Thanks, @Corrijean.

I have inserted the link above, and will put that post into the Cheating Forum, as well.

Most of the hyper-analytical folks are in that group.  I wonder what they will think?

Sounds eminiently plausible, @FirebrandX.

I rounded to the nearest 100, but 142 is still relatively small.

"Less chance of getting cheated on," was my presumption as well.  But I didn't want to state that outright.

I conjecture the "Cheating Forum" folks will agree with you.

Naturally, we can't discuss this topic (freely) in this current thread.