kevinyucc wrote:
my chess.com rating is 1410 online chess, but my USCF is 997
For the 50th time, we are NOT talking about "online chess". Please read more carefully before posting.
chess.com ratings are deflated against USCF
Sort:
Wild times. I agree with my brother-in-academia, Adam Rinkleff. Chess.com blitz ratings are usually lower than the same player's official USCF rating.
This thread nevertheless has been something on the order of eighteen months and one thousand posts of people shouting "apples and oranges."
KIWI FRUIT ! With deflation too !
johnmusacha wrote:
Wild times. I agree with my brother-in-academia, Adam Rinkleff. Chess.com blitz ratings are usually lower than the same player's official USCF rating.
This thread nevertheless has been something on the order of eighteen months and one thousand posts of people shouting "apples and oranges."
Which university do you two work together at?
motty474 wrote:
not only are you not making any sense
Then how is it that some people here are able to understand what I'm saying and agree with me? Why do you feel the need to argue? If you don't agree, or don't understand, why do you feel the need to voice your opinions? Nobody asked what you thought about what I said, all you are doing is spamming the thread up and making it difficult for the people who understand this subject to carry on a conversation.
Both Chess.com and USCF are based on Glicko systems.
And Stop Making Sense is an very old Talking Heads song. Please make a note of it.
Yes, my USCF rating is "deflated" on this site. End of story? Hardly.
After nearly 1000 posts, the "offhand dismissals" continue to fly strong and fast.
Welcome to the annonymous internet. It ain't gonna change during our lifetime.
So just get used to it.
zborg wrote:
Both Chess.com and USCF are based on Glicko systems.
Anyway, Rinkleff is correct in his initial post. I really can't be bothered to read all the stuff in between.
AdamRinkleff wrote:
ElKitch wrote:
I read your post and thought: "then where is he from?". I chuckled when hovered my mouse over it.
The great leader has a rating of 30000.
and i have the rating of 90000000
chuck
you can not trusted what he said
i checked that noneone had a rating higher than 2900
what ratings system????
AdamRinkleff wrote:
-waller- wrote:
Also, by your blitz rating -> USCF rating logic, I should be about NM level in the USCF. So watch out US, I'm coming over to get my title
Yah, actually, with 1900 in blitz I'm pretty sure you'd clock in at about 2200 at USCF, providing you are able to concentrate consistently for a couple hours. I know another 2200, guess what his blitz rating is here? 1900. Gee, go figure. I know a 2100... guess what his blitz rating is? 1800. I know a 2000... wanna guess the blitz rating? 1700! I know a 1900... wanna guess the blitz rating? 1650! I know an 1850... wanna guess the blitz rating? 1600! The numbers are pretty consistent. You can talk trash if you want, but if you'd calculate the numbers, you'd see I'm right.
afterreading that post
i went count the number of people that i now that break that "rule"
the reuslt around 96% of the poeple.
Ubik42 wrote:
Anyway, Rinkleff is correct in his initial post. I really can't be bothered to read all the stuff in between.
There are a few good posts from various people, but there is too much drivel from the "I wanna argue endlessly" crowd.
bobjoerock wrote:
i went count the number of people that i now that break that "rule"
the reuslt around 96% of the poeple.
Who exactly are you talking about, with their chess.com profiles and their USCF ID numbers? With a number like 96% you are implying that you looked at 25 people, and I rather doubt a Canadian with 14 friends on chess.com actually knows 25 people with their USCF and chess.com ratings.
you can not comparre rating for differnt time
bobjoerock wrote:
you can not comparre rating for differnt time
You can't. I can.
In general, I believe AdamRinkleff's hypothesis is correct. It seems to fall in line with myself as well as other people I know.
Congratulations to johnmusacha (#984) for necroing this. So much intelligent discussion has occured since.
Mar 21, 2014
0
#878
"[Ratings inflation/deflation]...You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Irontiger wrote:
Congratulations to johnmusacha (#984) for necroing this. So much intelligent discussion has occured since.
Merci, although a fortnight between comments 983 and 84 isn't really "necroing".
I've already explained this repeatedly, and plenty of people have agreed that what I said made sense.
Sock, meet Hand...