chess.com ratings are deflated against USCF

Read the red in quotes and read the comment about the red.  The rest is fluff written by the OP.

Daniel rensch said chess.com ratings are deflated as he is only 1800. 

PROBLEM SOLVED. MOVE ON

ta

He does simuls where he spends about a second on each move, one of them he disconnected and timed out against about 15 people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mt284vfblSU

good lad!

whatever, i felt really good about myself for about two mins there and you had to take it away from me. boohoo

for that guy who took a shot at me, first off I'm not complaining about a low bllitz rating. Especially on this site, or any other chess site. The only one that matters to me is my rating on USCF. I have much higher & lower ratings on other sites. But I'm not complaining about that.

So what are you whining about now?

Inquiring Minds Want to Know.  

ay?? is it just who see's it as a fun game?

<<if they lose they don't have the courtesy to accept a return game>>

I should have written "if they win" but it was late. 

Throwing it out there, my USCF is 900 points below my chess.com rating, although I haven't nessiscarily had the greatest expirience at the tournements, only being to 3, losing mostly.

I was reading up about whisky online and there are about 99 people who say "whisky does not age in the bottle" for every one who says "this is wrong ... it does". Now, logically it would seem that those who say "whisky does not age in the bottle" are wrong unless they adopt a specialised definition of "age" equivalent to "age in the same way and at a similar rate to how it ages in the barrel".

Likewise, I admin a philosophy group on Facebook and likewise there are a lot of people who are sure of their opinions who consider themselves to be philosophers. The point is that there are a lot of people who are very sure of their opinions yet all they did was borrow their opinion from someone else who was very sure about his. Or hers.

Anyway, general rules based on trends or statistics don't mean there can't be exceptions. I thought Adam's argument was pretty clear and straightforward but maybe he's overstating it somewhat. There are bound to be blitz specialists who achieve a high rating. I know there are "one minute specialists" who think they're playing chess but really they are just salesmen for a particularly fine brand of mouse oil.

Yes I am agreeing with you that this is my case as well.  Thus, the conclusion is that some people are better at blitz than otb and some people worse at blitz than otb.  The op is worse at blitz than otb and is making the conclusion that most people are like him which is false.  

"Even if the bridge collapses, at least the other person tried to be productive."

There's this thing some dude wrote a long time ago called The Parable of Laziness.  The basic idea is:  if you're doin' nothin', you can't screw anything up.

Way better to not build a bridge at all than to build one that collapses.

And countless monkeys with countless stones will eventually build the Millau Viaduct......

For Chris' sake. I'll clarify for the ivory tower lads:  if the bridge collapses well before its engineered lifespan. 

ok this thread has gotten off topic and more popular

Sorry, my chess.com ~100-200 > USCF when I was active in both.  Played some blitz recently and rating to strength relations have not changed much if at all on this site, so holds true even now.

What was i complaining about? Absolutely nothing. I was just staying facts.

AdamRinkleff wrote:

Fred-Splott wrote:

Apart form all this, the thesis of this thread holds in my case. My Fide rating is somewhat over 1900 and my chess.com blitz is about 1550. If I try hard I can get it to 1750 without too much difficulty, but no higher.Incidentally, significant comparisions merely involve positive (or negative) correlations. For example there would be a negative correlation between survival and a propensity for walking off cliffs. There would be bound to be some sort of positive correlation between Chess.com blitz ratings and longplay ratings. The larger the sample group the firmer such a correlation is, statistically speaking. A group of 20, provided they've been chosen fairly randomly, should be enough to see a pattern. 

Yah, I don't even know why people choose to argue with me about this, the numbers are patently obvious. The people who say you can't compare ratings systems are just being absurdist, that's like saying you can't compare traffic speeds in two different countries. As you observed, there is an approximate equation between ECF and FIDE, and there is likewise one between FIDE and USCF, and obviously there is going to be one between Chess.com and USCF. Obviously these are nothing more than estimated averages, and I never claimed otherwise. However, I have not seen one person who has a higher Chess.com blitz rating than their established USCF rating, and I have now seen dozens and dozens who have a blitz rating which is several hundred points lower. The pattern is fairly obvious. Of course, a couple of people have claimed that they are exceptions, but not only are such exceptions statistically inevitable (and therefore inconsequential), but they are thus far unconfirmed. The real mystery to me is why people choose to troll threads like this, where the original 'thesis' was simple, clear, and fairly uncontroversial. If someone doesn't agree, there really have no reason to come and express their disagreement... and yet, they do so with an almost obsessive vigor! I find that's the more interesting issue here, as it appears to be a cultural phenomenon across the entire internet. There seems to be a personality type which just is drawn toward vitrolic argument. I suppose its ultimately a self-esteem issue. I read a book recently which touched upon this, Fail-Safe (1962). One of the characters in the book talks about how some people build their careers upon negativity, trying to shoot other's ideas down, with the idea being that doing so proves that you are 'smarter' than the person whose idea you 'refuted'. Of course, such people rarely have any productive concrete ideas of their own. You can see this issue in politics, when politicians focus upon what's wrong with their opponent, instead of promoting their own original ideas. Ultimately, all of these people criticizing my statistical methods are just being morons. That's like criticizing someone's construction of a bridge, whilst you sit lazily doing nothing. Even if the bridge collapses, at least the other person tried to be productive. I guess there is a valuable life lesson in all this, which is that if you don't like the way someone is doing something, then do it for yourself, or at least help. There is really nothing to be gained from sitting around throwing out criticism at others. I suppose that's what the "judge not" parable from the Bible was talking about. The only time that you need to speak up in argument is when what someone is doing is somehow threatening or impeding you. However, in an internet forum, if you don't agree with a thread... is there any rational reason whatsoever to come and express your disagreement? I clearly waste my time in my own threads, defending against incessant trolls, but I have better things to do than go to other threads and try to debate there. I truly fail to understand people who do so. I think the real problem with such behavior is it spams up the thread. I guess, where I'm ultimately going with this, is that someone should devise a message board system where the creator of a thread can ban anyone from it, or delete any comment. That way, the thread can be kept on topic, with relevant discussion. Unfortunately, most threads tend to be hijacked by argument.

Jason wrote:

Adam, people argue with you mostly because you are a windbag asshole, and a liar (on this point see my earlier post 15 or so pages ago). No one cares about your original point, lost in the sands of time. You just rub people the wrong way. Not an effective life strategy, which I suspect you discovered some time ago, and which I further suspect embittered you somewhat.