chess.com ratings are deflated against USCF

Nope, I'm not much of a liar. I can be a bit irritable, I admit, but that's only because I posted this for people who want to understand what I'm saying, rather than for people who only look for arguments. Think about it, did my original post say: "Please let me know if you disagree!" No, I have no interest in hearing your petty thoughts.

You, apparently, have a craving for personal insults. Although you are not really a part of this discussion, you just can't refrain, can you?  I have never uttered a word to you, and yet you are going out of your way to talk trash? I really have no respect for people like you. Perhaps I should just ignore you, but I'd rather try to help you: get lost! Move on! Take all that negativity you feel towards me, and use it to read or write something else.

I concede, I can be downright condescending, sarcastic, and even rather rude, but at least I don't interrupt your threads in order to proffer  meaningless and utterly trite insults. I guess, if I rub people the wrong way; well, if those people are like you, I'm not too worried about it.

Above is an example of you being a windbag asshole.

See the top of page 12 for an example of you being a liar.

Personally I think you're in this for cheap thrills.

 

Actuallually this ^ says a lot about you...

You wrote three paragraphs. Summary:

1. "You're wrong, I'm right" 

2. "You're a bad person, I'm a good person."

3. "I'm not perfect, but I'm better than you." 

comment deleted

Mod: please read: the Chess.com posting rules. 

Personal attacks are not allowed.

Yep, thanks for clarifying my argument. I'm glad you understand.

But Adam, from your own profile you say your USCF is lower than your live rating.

Hmm

no. once again: reading comprehension.

Reading comprehension?  Try it out yourself, nothing I said was incorrect (don't believe me, look at your profile).

Out of the 23 unique user names in the first 5 or 6 pages (I may have missed a few?) about half of them had a USCF or FIDE rating listed.  So here's my own list.

AdamRinkleff, please stop reading here, this isn't for you.  You already made your point.  This is for people who want to see new information lol.  If you choose to read it, don't whine.  This isn't to correct your list, it's to educate it lol.

OTB         Chess.com         Difference (chess.com - OTB)

1800        1500-1900          +100   
2000        1800-1900          -100    
1400        1500-1800          +400    
1300        1400-1600          +300    
1800        1900                  +100   
1400        1670                  +270    
1800        1300-1400          -400     
1900        1800-2100          +200   
1800        1300-1700          -100     
1950        1600-1700          -250   
1450        1400-1600          +150 
1700        2000                  +300 

Using highest chess.com rating, the average difference =    +81  (inflated)

BTW if I take the middle point between chess.com ratings instead the average is -7 (deflated).

Which ratings have you used there, blitz, online?

Yeah, a few things.  I took whatever their highest and lowest were between online chess and live chess (not including TT or 960 etc).  If they only had one or the other I didn't make any distinction, I just threw it in there.

I also didn't check if the ratings were established (many games played) except in blake78613's case, his bullet rating was about 500 points lower so I checked and he had only played 2 games which he lost, so I didn't use that rating.

So sure, there are certainly problems with this list.  Also the truthfulness of their reported OTB rating, how current their OTB rating is, etc.

Oh, and in your case Scottrf I didn't use your reported 2800+ FIDE rating :D

Online ratings can be ignored though, they are known to be grossly inflated and quite often based on effort, the thread was whether blitz ratings matched.

1) I only used blitz ratings, whereas you used a balderdash of anything you could find.

2) I only used established ratings, from active users, whereas you didn't even bother to check.

3) You relied upon inaccurate self-reported USCF ratings, whereas I verified every single instance.

I would suggest that these are three reasons why my conclusions are valid, and yours are not.

@Scottrf
Meh, I only looked at the title.  I see now it's in live chess forum.

You're right about online play.  This means of the 12 I looked at live ratings tend to be deflated vs USCF as the title suggests.  But certainly not many hundreds of points, and certainly didn't hold true for everyone (maybe half of them had no online rating, just bullet and blitz).

Good points.  It seems live ratings do tend to be a bit deflated as your title suggests, even in the odd way I chose to make a list.

This surprises me actually, I thought it was the other way around.

Lol, at least you finally noticed. Its amazing how many people have come here telling me that online ratings are not valid because some people think for an hour, and others for a second. Oh, really?

Exactly.

Now, as for the question of how much are they deflated, I would suggest that active users actually tend to underestimate their USCF rating. Why? Because many of them haven't played in a tournament recently, whereas they've played lots of blitz and tactics training. Most of them will experience a ratings increase if and when they return to the USCF. For this reason, I also verified that the individuals I examined were actively involved in regular tournaments.

Yes, me as well, which is why I did my 'study' and published these results. Most people assume chess.com has inflated ratings, because Yahoo! chess did for so many years. I was talking to a USCF 1800 (who is about 1600 here), and he remarked, "[Expletive], those guys at chess.com are good..."

I think its demoralizing for a lot of USCF people who come here, expecting to trounce someone several hundred points lower than them, and instead losing repeatedly. I certainly know of one USCF individual who refuses to play chess.com, because he insists its too hard, despite his USCF rating of 1900. I think he just needs to realize that a rating of 1700 here is nothing to scoff at.

One person in this thread, who doesn't play USCF, laughed and said, "Well, by your logic, I should be a national master considering my 2100+ blitz rating!" Um, yes, actually, if you can maintain the endurance during longer time-controls. I know a national master who plays lots of blitz here, and is arguably better at blitz than at slow time controls, and his blitz rating here is 2050.

Hehe, I was thinking they may overestimate their OTB ratings, because if you stop tournament chess and only do online, your OTB skills can get rusty (long analysis, time management... non-gambit openings stuff like that).

I guess it depends on the person.  If they maintain their regular openings, and do some analysis on the side they may actually get better in terms of OTB play too as you suggest.