My chess.com blitz and USCF are essentially equal. I think 250 is excessive. When I get in the 2100s or 2000s on chess.com blitz, the upward pressure on my rating is noticeable, much more so than in my current USCF.
chess.com ratings are deflated against USCF
Sort:
blake78613 wrote:
You currently need 25 games (it used to be 20 games) to get an established rating, from 8-24 games you have a provisional rating OTB.
According to my mother, a local tournament director, it's 26 games for an established rating, and only 4 for a provisional rating. I have no idea about postal ratings.
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
OP,
I agree. Blitz ratings here are lower than USCF regular. The one caveat is the presence of (c)heaters here at the higher levels, which has a downward effect you don't see in USCF regular.
What?? Are you saying here in chess.com there are a lot of cheaters? At high level? like those with titles?
I don't know if I can play in a site full of cheaters at high levels...
ermannoc wrote:
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
OP,
I agree. Blitz ratings here are lower than USCF regular. The one caveat is the presence of (c)heaters here at the higher levels, which has a downward effect you don't see in USCF regular.
What?? Are you saying here in chess.com there are a lot of cheaters? At high level? like those with titles?
I don't know if I can play in a site full of cheaters at high levels...
Get used to it! How many people do you know that are 2200+ in real life? I haven't met many. All I have met are those in USCF OTB tournaments. And those who I have met in person, few who are here, that are high rated, I have beaten them OTB. I am 1766 rated in "real-life", and then when I get beat by someone who is under 1400 kinda irks me. I know for a fact they cheated, after further analysis. So yeah, higher rated players and small rated players trying to make a name for themselves, DO cheat.Sorry to break it to you...
For whatever its worth, I just found yet another person with active chess.com and USCF ratings. His chess.com rating was 200 points lower than the USCF rating. No surprise there, at least for me.
And here's another one: IM Mateusz Kolosowski has a blitz rating on chess.com of 2300, but his FIDE standard rating is 2450. Of course, its common knowledge that FIDE ratings are about 100 points lower than USCF ratings. So, once again, 2450 (+100) - 2300 = 250!
Well for what its worth my Chess.com ratings are higher but reasonably close to my USCF rating.
AdamRinkleff wrote:
And here's another one: IM Mateusz Kolosowski has a blitz rating on chess.com of 2300, but his FIDE standard rating is 2450. Of course, its common knowledge that FIDE ratings are about 100 points lower than USCF ratings. So, once again, 2450 (+100) - 2300 = 250!
Straws have been grasped for. First of all, this is outside of your originally stated range (1200-2300), and is therefore irrelevant.
Secondly, Your whole premise is that USCF and chess.com are around 250 points apart. You have tried to prove this with numbers (of unknown source) that indicate such a trend. But here, you make not only that assumption, but also that USCF and FIDE ratings are always 100 points apart.
But of course, you are just humbly and calmly stating your opinion, I'm sure if I crunch my own numbers, I'll get the same results, as you insist, USCF and chess.com are unfailingly 250 points apart. After all you have a, what was it, post-algebra education? Quite impressive.
ShindouHikaru wrote:
I'm sure if I crunch my own numbers, I'll get the same results
Yep. Try it.
Christie_Walters wrote:
FWIW, Adam Rinkleff's conclusions are right on the money. I wonder why everyone wants to give him a hard time about that.
Its a sick part of our culture, which gets amplified on the internet. People who try to be productive, and say something constructive, always get slammed by a horde of trolls who say things like "prove it" and basically try to negate everything. It doesn't actually matter how hard you try to prove a point to them, they will never be convinced, because all they want to do is argue. Apparently, their rationale is that if they criticize someone, it makes them look better. Its just childish behavior.
I'm ecf 17 and i'm 1400 something here
What would you consider an acceptable difference? Obviously 249 points difference is the same as 250, but if the difference between the USCF and chess.com is 0, clearly your formula doesn't apply in that situation.
ShindouHikaru wrote:
if the difference between the USCF and chess.com is 0, clearly your formula doesn't apply in that situation.
You should learn what an 'average difference' is. See the past twenty pages of posts for more information.
Well, obviously I can't find every single person USCF 1200-2300 who is on chess.com, so I would have to get my data from a smaller sample. That is what I meant by "that situation": the smaller sample. But never mind, I see you said 200-300 in your original post. I'll go collect some data. I'll report the results, probably within a few days.
cookiemonster161140 wrote:
correspondence chess cannot be directly compared to otb play.
So, yet another person criticizes what I've said, without even carefully reading what I've said? As I've said many times, reading comprehension is a real skill! Try to improve yours before you go troll a thread.
cookiemonster161140 wrote:
Seriously though this question has been beaten to death in the forums for years. Fact is 100% of chess.com members play on chess.com, but of those only a small percentage are also active-and recently so-over the board in USCF tournaments. So you decide what type of study you want to conduct, but with such a small sample most reasonable folks will understand your results are bogus.
Furthermore, correspondence chess cannot be directly compared to otb play. That's a known fact. So why bother. Just go play chess and have fun.
Okay.
1. I find it funny that you say "with such a small sample," as if I had actually given a number. I will not hunt down every single person who is member of both the USCF and chess.com. I will take a smaller sample than EVERYONE. That is all that I said. Now to actually give a number, I intend to look for 50-100 people, as I will have plenty of time to look in the next few days.
2. 100% of chess.com members absolutely do NOT play on chess.com. Countless accounts have been inactive for months, and I seriously doubt they will return. But that is irrelevant. For what it's worth, you're right, most are not from the United States, and even those that are aren't necessarily active serious players.
3. I'm not saying anything about Correspondence Chess. As far as I know, nobody has, although I didn't scroll through all twenty two pages of bickering. The comparison was made to Blitz Chess.
And, as you realized, "reasonable" is not an adjective applicable to many people on this forum.
honestly i dont think chess.com ratings are deflated but i think some players here are inflated (double chins and all that flab)
Dec 28, 2012
0
#379
AdamRinkleff wrote:
And here's another one: IM Mateusz Kolosowski has a blitz rating on chess.com of 2300, but his FIDE standard rating is 2450. Of course, its common knowledge that FIDE ratings are about 100 points lower than USCF ratings. So, once again, 2450 (+100) - 2300 = 250!
Other way round.
So, I've read all the posts saying that you can't compare chess.com and uscf ratings, but that's obviously nonsense. If a person has two ratings, you most certainly can compare them. If a group of people have ratings, you can discuss them as a group.
I've also read all the posts that say that chess.com ratings are inflated... uh, no.
I've checked about about twenty people I know, who actively play USCF tournaments and chess.com blitz, with ratings ranging from 1200 (uscf) to 2300 (uscf). In -every- case, their blitz rating is about 2-300 points lower on chess.com when compared with their uscf standard rating. I think this is a pretty consistent pattern.
Does this mean that someone with a chess.com blitz rating of 1500 is as good as a uscf 17-1800? no. long multi-hour games require a degree of discipline and concentration which most blitz players won't have. however, i think it is fairly clear that an 1800 uscf will normally be about 15-1600 on chess.com blitz.
Should we be surprised that chess.com ratings are deflated? No, we already know from FIDE that the international pool of players is stronger than the American average. [Mod Edit: Please refrain from making offensive comments about Nationality.] That probably accounts for about 100-150 points. The rest is probably caused by the turbulent nature of blitz and differences in how chess.com calculates ratings.
-Adam Rinkleff
I agree. I don't have a USCF, but I think that blitz ratings are deflated too.