chess.com ratings are deflated against USCF

When Abe Lincoln was practising law in Illinois, a couple of men came to visit him.  One of the men (who was a country squire) said, "Could you settle an argument for us? Can a squire preform a marriage ceremony?"  Lincoln explained that a squire couldn't perform a marriage ceremony.  Whereupon, the squire said, "Abe Lincoln, I used to respect your opinion; but you are a fool and I can prove it.   Why just this morning, I performed two marriage ceremonies!"

With your high blitz rating, and your lackluster USCF standard rating, its pretty clear you have issues with longer time-controls. My advice for you would be to stop focusing on blitz and start focusing on standard. You don't think "fine". You should work on the issue so you can get better.

Meanwhile, I don't think fast enough. That's why I'm practicing blitz to work on that. Most standard players are similar to me, not you. See? Ultimately, we can compare rating pools, and we can conclude that the average USCF standard player will score 2-300 points lower at chess.com blitz. If you weren't trying so hard to troll, this might even make sense to you. This is not complicated.

Once again, the statistics are pretty clear: most USCF standard players score lower on chess.com blitz. That's just a fact, which you can verify for yourself. The fact that you are an exception is irrelevant. People criticized me for only using a few dozen examples to extrapolate, but yet you are 'refuting' me using only your own personal example. Is that rational?

Since you happen to be better at blitz than at standard, its obvious that  you are deficient in some way at standard. If you want to get better, that's what you need to focus on. Take my advice or leave it, I don't actually care if you get better.

The problem with all you internet trolls is you think someone wants to argue with you. You think forums are for debating. However, I don't care what you think. I don't need to prove anything to  you. If you don't agree -- why should I care? I'm talking to someone other than you, someone intelligent enough to understand what I'm saying. I really do not value your opinion at all. I know when I'm right, and I don't seek your approval. This math is really simple, and anyone can verify the numbers for themselves.

Pretty much the same goes on for me. I actually think its consistent but an average could be verified with more experiments.

And I really suck at blitz, I hang a lot of pieces because I don't focus, unlike in a competitive tournament setting.

You are right, USCF high rated players take the game seriously and chess.com to be just fun, so they don't try so hard to improve their blitz rating (like me)

But I have a question: How about the high rated blitz players here? Sure, you've got average players, but many high rated blitz players are just used to playing quickly, and therefore suffer in USCF standard.

Ah, but the way you word it makes it seem like I only think fast, but not fine.  While you think fine, but not fast. The fact is you have trouble in both time controls as you have lower rating in both than me. This means you think neither fast nor "fine" by your standards, so why work on the fast part when clearly you are deficient in the more important "fine" thinking.  

BTW the "I am right and everyone else who disagrees is wrong" attitude is a good example of deficient thinking.  That might just be a key factor to your "fine" thinking problem.

Well, the 2100s can usually beat chess computers, because the greatest humans to play the game have a better positional understanding. The computer's positional strength could be used to determine who gets a deflated elo here and who doesn't. It's simple. If you can't beat the computer, you're deflated.

At chess.com you start out with a rating of 1200 Gleicko (sp?) and go from there.  The 1200 starting number is purely arbitrary.  If the folks who started chess.com had chosen 1500 to start with instead of 1200, then every rating in the Gleicko system (blitz or online) would be 300 points higher than it is today.  Given the arbitrary nature of the absolute value of the scale, discussing rating inflation or deflation relative to another rating system with a different pool of players is just silly.

Well, its not entirely silly. Someone might wish to know what rating they would achieve in a different pool. By comparing people who are active in both pools, you can derive an average approximation. Its not a big deal, I don't know why some people are so obsessive about denying the fact that this can be done.

The formula is simple: standard@USCF - 250 ~= blitz@chess.com

I'm aware that there are differences in the rating systems, and the player pools, but none of that is really relevant. The fact of the matter is that standard USCF ratings are 2-300 higher than chess.com blitz ratings.

I merely made this thread, because every thread I saw was claiming that chess.com ratings were inflated. This may have been true several years ago, but as one individual noted previously, this does seem to have changed in recent years.

Are you done trolling? The fact that you have a higher rating than me is not relevant to the question of statistics. We've already addressed the fact that you are a statistical aberration. The difference between my USCF and Chess.com ratings is perfectly normal.

Quit trying to maintain a stupid argument. You can't rationally deny the fact that there is a difference between the -average USCF and Chess.com rating, and that difference is approximately 250. Check the numbers for yourself, its blatantly obvious.

Question: is this difference of 250 points comparing USCF slow rating to

chess.com fast ratings only or does it apply to all the chess.com ratings [about 6 of them?]

No, I've said repeatedly, its a one-way estimate from USCF standard to chess.com blitz. Its irrelevant for all other comparisons. Thus far, out of the two dozen people I've examined with verified active scores at both USCF and chess.com, every single one of them was 2-300 points lower at chess.com. I find it very unlikely that's a statistical fluke.

Thanks, it would be interesting to make the other comparisons also.

comparing USCF to the other chess.com ratings and also comparing other chess.com ratings to each other...

I have another question:  One reason [out of several reasons] I do not play chess com games is that I was told I would have to start  at a rating of 1200 and work my way up.  Is this true?  [if so, it does not make sense]

The relevant comparison is perhaps between USCF "Quick Chess" ratings (Gane in 10 up to game in 60) with Chess.com "Standard Live" Chess ratings (Game in 15 or slower).

Both pools use the (same) Glicko system.  My ratings are within 50-100 points of each other.  Hardly a surprising result.

But if players are drinking, cheating, being lazy, or playing all through the night, and Chess.com ratings "don't count," then perhaps that's all it takes to get a divergence beween the two ratings.

Nuff said?

If it is true that to play in Chess.com you must start with a 1200 rating then that would sckew the ratings for everybody.  That is why I am wondering  if it is true?

I joined not so long ago and started at 1200 which is consistent with everybody doing so. But perhaps someone can post who didn't and then we will know.

I am puzzled as to why starting at an arbitrary number puts you off playing? But each to their own. What is your preference these days, I know that at one time you liked correspondence chess.  Does that form of the game survive? (I mean posting the moves).

Ok, I read it is true that in Chess.co you must start with a 1200 rating!

This really messes the rating system.  Higher rated players will not start at 1200 for one thing.  Also, say if you are at 1600 it means you must have played above a 1600 strength to get there. In fact any rating you have above 1200 means you must be objectively better than your current rating.

If your real rating is below 1200 then you were "given" rating points you do not deserve.

Why did they put in a nonsense rating system???

Well early on the rating is misleading but soon enough you find your level.

I guess the alternative would be to start everyone at zero. That would be even more misleading though.

I can't really see a system that imported some other rating. If it was an honour system it would be abused and you would still have to start the inumerble unrated people somewhere.

I quite like the 1200 idea myself.

I do rather object to bumping into hotshot players in welcome games tho. I'm playing one now and he is way stronger than me.

Ok, suspose your true rating for slow games--a move every couple of days is 2400 and you have to start at 1200 and let us say you play 8 games against players with an average rating of 1400 and you win all 8--what approximately would your new rating be?

There are alternatives better than starting everyone at zero...

johny, you just gave one of the reasons why this rating system is not so good...

That's 100% against 1400, translates to 1800, I think.

But a whole posse are probably gonna explain now why I'm wrong.