chess.com ratings are deflated against USCF

Sort:
zborg
bigpoison wrote:

You're obsessed dude. Cheaters aren't playing bums like us often enough to notice. The ops reckoning ain't dead, but it's close enough.

Cheats are playing at all rating levels.  Intermittent cheating, is quite common.  They use their engines during small parts of the game.  Often times this is enough for them to win.  Sometimes not.

And when they "turn on" their engines, they (sometimes) start to taunt you in the chat box.  It's all very entertaining.  Except then, you typically lose.  

PeterB1517

Petrip wrote:

This is the best analysis of the thing

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/fide-ratings-vs-chesscom-ratings-explored

Important point is that correlation coefficient is merely 0.738 for blitz rating-Elo. Meaning that only about 50% of variation in chess.com rating is explained by ones Elo rating or  the other way round. Rest is explained by differences of the two different environments.

and here is the Elo prediction formula from blitz rating, which seems to be the most reliable predictor:

483 + 0.769 * Blitz = FIDE rating (+-193)

So an error of 200 points. So you  compare, as long as you undersstand that result might be off by 200 points and is unlikely to hit the target within 50 pts.

And chess.con Std to Elo has corr. coef. below 0.6 meaning that only 36% is explained by rating in one pool and rest is something else

It was a good link and it supports Adams original point that chess.com blitz ratings are lower than OTB rating by about 150 pts.

Irontiger
zborg wrote:
bigpoison wrote:

You're obsessed dude. Cheaters aren't playing bums like us often enough to notice. The ops reckoning ain't dead, but it's close enough.

Cheats are playing at all rating levels.  Intermittent cheating, is quite common.  They use their engines during small parts of the game.  Often times this is enough for them to win.  Sometimes not.

And when they "turn on" their engines, they (sometimes) start to taunt you in the chat box.  It's all very entertaining.  Except then, you typically lose.  

Would be nice with some, you know, evidence.

nameno1had
Irontiger wrote:
zborg wrote:
bigpoison wrote:

You're obsessed dude. Cheaters aren't playing bums like us often enough to notice. The ops reckoning ain't dead, but it's close enough.

Cheats are playing at all rating levels.  Intermittent cheating, is quite common.  They use their engines during small parts of the game.  Often times this is enough for them to win.  Sometimes not.

And when they "turn on" their engines, they (sometimes) start to taunt you in the chat box.  It's all very entertaining.  Except then, you typically lose.  

Would be nice with some, you know, evidence.

Direct accusations of cheating in the forums is forbidden. Anymore than perhaps the mere mention of its possible is also forbidden to discuss in these forums.

Ubik42
PeterB1517 wrote:

Petrip wrote:

This is the best analysis of the thing

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/fide-ratings-vs-chesscom-ratings-explored

Important point is that correlation coefficient is merely 0.738 for blitz rating-Elo. Meaning that only about 50% of variation in chess.com rating is explained by ones Elo rating or  the other way round. Rest is explained by differences of the two different environments.

and here is the Elo prediction formula from blitz rating, which seems to be the most reliable predictor:

483 + 0.769 * Blitz = FIDE rating (+-193)

So an error of 200 points. So you  compare, as long as you undersstand that result might be off by 200 points and is unlikely to hit the target within 50 pts.

And chess.con Std to Elo has corr. coef. below 0.6 meaning that only 36% is explained by rating in one pool and rest is something else

 

It was a good link and it supports Adams original point that chess.com blitz ratings are lower than OTB rating by about 150 pts.

My blitz rating is about 400 points below my OTB rating.

Ubik42
zborg wrote:
bigpoison wrote:

You're obsessed dude. Cheaters aren't playing bums like us often enough to notice. The ops reckoning ain't dead, but it's close enough.

Cheats are playing at all rating levels.  Intermittent cheating, is quite common.  They use their engines during small parts of the game.  Often times this is enough for them to win.  Sometimes not.

And when they "turn on" their engines, they (sometimes) start to taunt you in the chat box.  It's all very entertaining.  Except then, you typically lose.  

This is like using a drug.

So he cheats a little, his rating goes up and he find himself against tougher opponents.

Does he then start losing?

bigpoison
zborg wrote:
bigpoison wrote:

You're obsessed dude. Cheaters aren't playing bums like us often enough to notice. The ops reckoning ain't dead, but it's close enough.

Cheats are playing at all rating levels.  Intermittent cheating, is quite common.  They use their engines during small parts of the game.  Often times this is enough for them to win.  Sometimes not.

And when they "turn on" their engines, they (sometimes) start to taunt you in the chat box.  It's all very entertaining.  Except then, you typically lose.  

I've been playing chess here for six years.  I've played four opponents who were later banned for cheating.

If there are folks who use an engine for only a couple of moves a game, I'd never know the difference anyway.  Why do you think there are many folks who do this?  What's the point?

JustLikeMusic313

Never compare online blitz to OTB play. Can't relate the two. 

trysts

Why would anyone play chess here while thinking people are cheating all-the-time? It's too egocentric to think like that.

nameno1had
bigpoison wrote:
zborg wrote:
bigpoison wrote:

You're obsessed dude. Cheaters aren't playing bums like us often enough to notice. The ops reckoning ain't dead, but it's close enough.

Cheats are playing at all rating levels.  Intermittent cheating, is quite common.  They use their engines during small parts of the game.  Often times this is enough for them to win.  Sometimes not.

And when they "turn on" their engines, they (sometimes) start to taunt you in the chat box.  It's all very entertaining.  Except then, you typically lose.  

I've been playing chess here for six years.  I've played four opponents who were later banned for cheating.

If there are folks who use an engine for only a couple of moves a game, I'd never know the difference anyway.  Why do you think there are many folks who do this?  What's the point?

I see many who intentionally play worse moves than the best, that were obvious, to lower their t-stat scores that are used in cheat detection analysis. People here have some real misconceptions about what it is like to play against someone, who using engine assistance in various forms.

SmyslovFan
PeterB1517 wrote:

Petrip wrote:

This is the best analysis of the thing

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/fide-ratings-vs-chesscom-ratings-explored

Important point is that correlation coefficient is merely 0.738 for blitz rating-Elo. Meaning that only about 50% of variation in chess.com rating is explained by ones Elo rating or  the other way round. Rest is explained by differences of the two different environments.

and here is the Elo prediction formula from blitz rating, which seems to be the most reliable predictor:

483 + 0.769 * Blitz = FIDE rating (+-193)

So an error of 200 points. So you  compare, as long as you undersstand that result might be off by 200 points and is unlikely to hit the target within 50 pts.

And chess.con Std to Elo has corr. coef. below 0.6 meaning that only 36% is explained by rating in one pool and rest is something else

 

It was a good link and it supports Adams original point that chess.com blitz ratings are lower than OTB rating by about 150 pts. [Added: Give or take 200 rating points]

So, if you're satisfied with being accurate to about one standard deviation, you can say there is some correlation. Yes, ratings can be compared, but a person cannot accurately predict within 50 rating points what their FIDE rating will be based on their chess.com rating. They could be off by 200 rating points in either direction.

bigpoison
trysts wrote:

Why would anyone play chess here while thinking people are cheating all-the-time? It's too egocentric to think like that.

You're, obviously, one of those cheaters.  How else can you explain your record against such a vaunted chess player as myself.  Just look at this game!

 



trysts

LaughingThat was a crazy game!

bigpoison

A miniature! 

Ubik42

Thats what happens when a player using Houdini 3 matches wits with a player using Houdini 4.

bigpoison

I use the Fischer Price chess engine.

Ubik42
nameno1had wrote:
bigpoison wrote:
zborg wrote:
bigpoison wrote:

You're obsessed dude. Cheaters aren't playing bums like us often enough to notice. The ops reckoning ain't dead, but it's close enough.

Cheats are playing at all rating levels.  Intermittent cheating, is quite common.  They use their engines during small parts of the game.  Often times this is enough for them to win.  Sometimes not.

And when they "turn on" their engines, they (sometimes) start to taunt you in the chat box.  It's all very entertaining.  Except then, you typically lose.  

I've been playing chess here for six years.  I've played four opponents who were later banned for cheating.

If there are folks who use an engine for only a couple of moves a game, I'd never know the difference anyway.  Why do you think there are many folks who do this?  What's the point?

I see many who intentionally play worse moves than the best, that were obvious, to lower their t-stat scores that are used in cheat detection analysis. People here have some real misconceptions about what it is like to play against someone, who using engine assistance in various forms.

Of course people cheat here, but this gets a little too machiavellian. Why on earth would you combine cheating with intentional bad moves? Does this make sense to anyone? You play a flawless computer move, then balance it out with a blunder? What is the goal?

bigpoison

What the hell is an obvious best move anyway?  Is that a forced move?  If it's not, it's obvious to whom?  Obviously, what's obvious to trysts isn't obvious to me.

Ubik42

I have never suspected anyone of cheating against me though I am sure it happens occasionally. But I typically beat people rated 100 points or more below me and lose to people rated 100 points above me, which is about what I expect.

trysts
bigpoison wrote:

What the hell is an obvious best move anyway?  Is that a forced move?  If it's not, it's obvious to whom?  Obviously, what's obvious to trysts isn't obvious to me.

I know, right. I remember reading someone giving advice in the forums to a beginner chess player, and they said something like, "Just find the best moves and play them"Laughing