chess.com ratings are deflated against USCF

Are you planning to stay in the Hotel of Doom when it opens? Looks like an amazing place.

Which one? The great leader built twelve of those, but western propaganda pretends we only have the one. As you can see in the photo, they are equipped with anti-missile rockets and are capable of drowning any imperialist strike in an ocean of fire.

No, its not the same time control, but I think (and both GMs and psychological studies have confirmed) that standard players can easily transition into blitz play, although the reverse is more difficult, which is why so many GMs discourage beginners from playing blitz.

I'm sure the rating differential gets skewed toward the ends of the spectrum, but it seems fairly consistent across the broad base of players between 1200-2200 or so.

Sssshhh. Don't spill the beans about the rockets - the advantage of surprise will be lost!

I don't understand few things, and i hope someone helps me.

I read the debate by both sides, but still I have questions.

1. I took statistics long time ago, so my memory doesn't help me, but the professor was clear that the most important thing was the random sample, because as humans we tend to justify our prejudices with data which conform to our vision. So how did the researcher created the random sample of at least 25 subjects? (the professor also said that they found some studies of the 80ies, which were not correct about 20 years later, and the problem was the random sample)

2. I also don't understand how to compare the performance between the two different ratings. A tournament cost often 40-50 dollars of entry fee, which means 10 dollars a game (if the tournament is 5 rounds). Here people can play a lot of games without that economical pressure. I witnessed a 1800 player explode in tears because he lost the last game, and he didn't win the state championship for his category. I doubt here anyone shed one tear when they lose a game.

3. I don't understand how do we know if the players taken here as example are not making experiments, using computers (or maybe computers are used against them) playing new openings, or just being distracted by the home environment. Often a child or the wife can come to ask things, also if she sees that we are playing, while that for sure doesn't happen in a tournament game, or at least when you can think 10 minutes per move, there is also time to get back in focus.

4. What about the time of the day when the games are played? There was a study which demonstrated how chess player brains act differently during different time of the day. How to compare the tournament games, played over an extensive time, with blitz games maybe played in times in which the brain is not in good shape? Maybe some players just play a couple of games at night before going to sleep, but that wouldn't happen in a real tournament where they lose money, and they are playing competitively.

Of course there are many more factors which make the two games totally different. Maybe it would be interesting to see the different rating of the same random sample in internet chess club, to confirm the data.

You cannot compare it:

For example: 

My rating is 1400-ish, but online, it is 1670!

It also depends on the opponents you are playing online, the amount of games you play online compared to OTB, 

The biggest difference for me is that online I can analyze with a board in front of me. In an otb match I cannot. I have poor visualisation so I play a good deal better here than I do otb.

in my area, and the players i have known otb on this site, the blitz ratings and otb standard are approximately the same.

Of course that is another thing I found strange.

For example, before when people were playing correspondence chess (what chess.com calls "online") they would take their time, often analyzing for hours. Here I saw some online player getting checkmate in 1 and don't see it!! I believe they are using their phones to play, and that must be the reason the game quality went down.

If you could show a one to one mapping of USCF ratings to Chess.com ratings  and the USCF ratings were always exactly 250 points lower that would not show that Chess.com's rated are inflated, it would just show a different scale.  When you play some one you don't mix rating system, you don't have it where one player USCF ratings changes, but the others Chess.com rating changes.  There is no intermixing of rating points, so to say that Chess.com rating points is inflated compared to USCF rating points is nonsense.   To say that there is an inflation of Chess.coms ratings means that a chess.com rating of today is worth less than a chess.com rating of sometime in the past.  An inflation of rating points means that an increase of rating points over a period of time is greater than the increase of chess skill over the same period of time.  The natural tendency of a growing pool over a period of time is a deflation of rating points.  This is especially true of an Elo rating.   An Elo rating system is a  closed system which means if two players play each other the system neither gains nor loses points, they are just transferred between the players.  Neither the USCF nor Chess.com use a closed system.  In the USCF a master's rating is less volatile than a non-master.  Chess.com doesn't use an Elo system but a system where your rating becomes less volatile the more games you play.

Explain how I have a 1900 uscf and 1900 fide, but have a 2100 blitz rating?

How can this possibly mean i'm theoretically 2350 uscf

Also it is interesting to me that there are some titled players who have lower blitz ratings than me, but have uscf ratings that are like 300 points higher...

I think chess.com turn based rating have deflated. If you look at people who have been members here for 3 or more years you will see that many of them had much higher ratings years ago. Either that or you used to get a massive rating spike after you win your first few games.

Lol, some dumb people been posting up above. Look, guys, if you don't believe me, verify it for yourself. All you have to do is find people with active USCF ratings and active chess.com blitz ratings. This wasn't hard for me to do, so you should be able to manage it for yourself. The only hard part is verifying that they have an active rating in both systems, I guess maybe some of you don't know very many chess players.

The calculations are really straightforward. Its blatantly obvious that if you have two rating pools, they probably won't be equal, and one of them will be harder than the other. As it turns out, chess.com blitz is a more difficult pool than uscf standard. If you take a 1500 on chess.com, and have them play a blitz game against a 1500 from the uscf -- the chess.com player will usually have a substantial advantage, performing on par with a 17-1800 from the uscf.

If you read carefully, you'll note that I'm not saying a 1500 from chess.com is as good as a 17-1800 at standard, as I'm clearly only talking about blitz performance. Some of you have a really atrocious reading comprehension problem.

I don't need to prove this to you people, if you disagree - you don't need to troll, but you can waste your time if you want. I'm just telling the facts to people who want to know. Chess.com blitz ratings are deflated by about 250 points when compared with uscf standard ratings.

You can compare different rating pools, and I just did.

how can I possibly be 2350 strength when i'm 1900 uscf and 2100 blitz.  I am the counterexample to your argument.  The fact is you claim to be 1800 uscf and i am 100 points higher-1900.  Now lets compare our blitz ratings.  You are 1500 and I am 2100.  What does this mean? it means you are just bad at blitz.  That's all. lol. Some strong players are not good at blitz.  I see a few NMs with lower blitz than me.  It doesn't make sense to me, but it's just what it is.  

If 1000 people play socces on a field. Another 100 people, who are all extra motivated, play futsal. One day the sportshall where they play burns down, so they decide to play soccer on the field too and join the other competition.

How will they start? And once they get used to playing on the field where will they end in the ranking*?

* this is a very special 1 on 1 soccercompetition. 

So, you mean people online can use computers, books, analysis boards, friends -- basically, they can cheat when playing online? Gee, I wonder if this might further explain why chess.com ratings are deflated for people who aren't cheating? You think, maybe? Maybe? Perhaps you would get better at visualization if you would stop cheating? Lol, seriously.

I mean, who is confused by this? In rating system A, cheating is not permitted. In rating system B, cheating definitely occurs. Sometimes, players from A perform in B, and their rating is significantly lower in B than it was in A. This isn't exactly difficult to understand.

How should I know? Exceptions are to be expected. There are some obvious possibilities. Your USCF rating might not be accurate, how frequently do you play in tournaments? Its entirely possible that you are good at blitz, but just plain suck at standard, because you don't think very well for long periods of time. Maybe you have ADHD? Regardless, you are an aberration from the norm, and your situation is not significant.

With a 2100 blitz rating, I'm sure you could easily get up to 2300 if you really tried. My guess is you aren't really genuinely trying to get to 2300, and that's why you aren't 2300. You should probably quit playing blitz and start figuring out why you are doing so poorly at standard.

I am playing tournaments once a month and I play in my university's chess club weekly.  I think fine for long periods of time...I wouldn't be 1900 if I didn't.  I definitely do not have ADHD.  I don't think it is so easy to get to 2300 just because you "try" hard.  You can only improve to a certain point through sheer will power.  I am not 2300 or even 2000 because I make inaccuracies and the stronger you are the harder it will be to identify the exact details of these inaccuracies.  Now let's talk about blitz ratings.  why do we have similar uscf ratings(within a 100 points), but you have 600 fewer points in blitz.  Perhaps it is because you like all the other people who have blitz ratings that are less than uscf just can't think fast enough or accurately enough. So maybe instead of hoping I have ADHD, it just might be the other way around; Hope this explanation helps!

Nice comeback sir.