chess.com ratings are deflated against USCF

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.

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.

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.  

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?

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]

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

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.

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.