I'm not gonna read all 692 post but, Bruce Pandolfini has in the past, remarked that all on-line ratings are a little inflated!
chess.com ratings are deflated against USCF
Sort:
I made no claim my analysis proved or disproved rating deflation. However, I'll argue now that my analysis supports rating deflation, though hardly at the level of proof.
According to this chart of USCF ratings, 2000+ players are in the 97th percentile of non-scholastic players.
By that reckoning there ought to be around eighteen Slow Chess players with ratings 2000+, not just one, with presumably a few masters in the group.
The only counter-argument is that the population of Slow Chess players is substantially different from the UCSF in such a way that there are almost no experts or masters who would play Slow Chess.
I don't see why that would be the case. Furthermore, I would note that Slow Chess is about as close as online chess gets to OTB tournament play.
bigpoison wrote:
He didn't say anything about rating deflation. Read it again.
116 minutes ago · Quote · #690
Yesterday I analyzed the December compilation of Slow Chess games played in the Dan Heisman Learning Center:
Num Games: 5953
Num Players: 613
High Rating: 2062
Low Rating: 666
Avg Rating: 1392
600: 1
700: 3
800: 14
900: 19
1000: 29
1100: 49
1200: 85
1300: 93
1400: 129
1500: 83
1600: 49
1700: 38
1800: 15
1900: 5
2000: 1
FWIW, Adam R.'s claim matches "my gut sense that chess.com ratings are 200-300 points deflated compared to USCF". In fact that was exactly the spread I mentioned to an old friend from my high school team the other day in email.
I've been playing Slow Chess here for a few months and way underestimating my opponents.
ipcress12 wrote:
I made no claim my analysis proved or disproved rating deflation. However, I'll argue now that my analysis supports rating deflation, though hardly at the level of proof.
According to this chart of USCF ratings, 2000+ players are in the 97th percentile of non-scholastic players.
By that reckoning there ought to be around eighteen Slow Chess players with ratings 2000+, not just one, with presumably a few masters in the group.
The only counter-argument is that the population of Slow Chess players is substantially different from the UCSF in such a way that there are almost no experts or masters who would play Slow Chess.
I don't see why that would be the case. Furthermore, I would note that Slow Chess is about as close as online chess gets to OTB tournament play.
While I am not aguing your claim, it just didn't appear that the data you presented backed up your claim, simply from the standpoint that all of the data you expressed in words, wasn't there in numbers, in some sort of chart or graph to be viewed.
I had thought the numbers in my table qualified as numbers even if they were not in a chart or graph.
ipcress12 wrote:
I had thought the numbers in my table qualified as numbers even if they were not in a chart or graph.
But the sets of numbers don't say specifically what they are. All I am saying is that, even if the proper description for the numbers is in your post, it is too much trouble to sit and dissect it, to corroborate your evidence. No pun intended. Unless you are only interested in convincing further, those who already agreed with you, it doesn't do much to prove your case. It is like saying I have a beautiful stainedglass window and then you hand me a box of pieces and say, hey look...
Numbers & statistics can be made to LOOK like anything. The're harder to prove when the're in a graph, or chart.
RonaldJosephCote wrote:
Numbers & statistics can be made to LOOK like anything. The're harder to prove when the're in a graph, or chart.
At least they are easier to examine to either prove or disprove in an organized form...
Thank U, that's what I meant. Time 4 another coffee!
It's pretty basic -- even obvious I would say.
The numbers on the left are rating levels. The numbers on right are the quantity of players at that respective rating level.
Thus "2000: 1" means only one player with a rating over 2000. Capisce?
Are you speaking for all non paying members, or just yourself??
ipcress12 wrote:
It's pretty basic -- even obvious I would say.
The numbers on the left are rating levels. The numbers on right are the quantity of players at that respective rating level.
Thus "2000: 1" means only one player with a rating over 2000. Capisce?
How does this show any of the ratings listed are inflated ?
Let's use the one player with the rating of 2000, since you used it is an example. How does the data listed in any of these groups, below, show an inflation ?
The only way to show or prove even an incidence of deflation amongst a group would be to have average differences between the USCF ratings and the On line ratings here. I see neither of those latter mentioned pieces of data present. I just see some numbers that you said you took from a Dan Heisman study group that show what the average rating among players are here, for on line chess, in that group.
Please explain...
Num Games: 5953
Num Players: 613
High Rating: 2062
Low Rating: 666
Avg Rating: 1392
600: 1
700: 3
800: 14
900: 19
1000: 29
1100: 49
1200: 85
1300: 93
1400: 129
1500: 83
1600: 49
1700: 38
1800: 15
1900: 5
2000: 1
Please explain...
No. I don't have time for the ABC version.
Good day.
7 minutes ago · Quote · #709
Please explain...
No. I don't have time for the ABC version.
Good day.
-
3 minutes ago · Quote · #710
Yep, told you these guys were dense. Just generally ignorant country folks.
/thread
-
It is interesting that some suddenly find it inconvenient if someone wants to check their math, while others think someone born and raised in a major metro area, in a states capitol, is somehow one of the hillbillies...figures I'd get excuses and insults instead of anything credible...
To nameno1; If you check the profile of TacticallSymphony, he's only been on this site since yesterday. He hasn't played 1 game. He could be a previously banned member with a new user name. He just wants to argue.
He's complaining in the ICC thread.
He's complained in 4 threads, played 0 games, and he's been here 1 day. I played here for 6 months before I posted hello in 1 thread. Kid, if you went to Vietnam, I'd shoot ya myself.
I was born in 1956. You don't know your history. The Tet offensive was in 1972. Nixon called for a cease fire in 1973. He ran for re-election by saying he'd get us out. In 1974 he won, Danang fell, and we got out. I graduated in 1974 and joined the Air Force, guarded Nuclear warheads for 4 yrs, with a dog, at night. What did you do that your sooo high and mighty, can talk to me about the military??
He didn't say anything about rating deflation. Read it again.