chess.com ratings are deflated against USCF

He just can't help himself. He went back and added a paragraph!

Because, unlike you, I choose not to spam endlessly? God forbid, I added a paragraph! Are you going to cut and paste what I wrote here as well?

PS: I added this!

Do you know how to read?

"I only included members if they had active, nonprovisional ratings based on many games."

1500 Chess.com rating vs. 1750 USCF

Do you know how to think? Just because I say "active" and jcbutler says "active", it doesn't mean we used the same definition.

SmyslovFan, you are arguing against AdamRinkleff using Jcbutler's study as a piece of evidence... but from what I can see, Jcbutler essentially agrees with AdamRinkleff. Their formulas are slightly different -- which they are bound to be, due to comparing different groups of players and having slightly different standards of player activity -- but this quote directly from Jcbutler is in agreeance with AdamRinkleff's premise. There is a strong correlation between the rating pools, and they CAN be compared.

Personally, I think it is foolish to say the pools cannot be compared. Scientific studies aside, it is easy to see that chess.com blitz players are stronger than the OTB USCF equivalents, often by a full class level or more. Just watch some blitz games on here -- many NMs are rated around 2000, and many 1900 level blitz players seem to compete almost evenly with FMs, IMs, GMs. On the lower end, I have rarely seen a true 1500 OTB rated player be higher than 1300ish in blitz. And many players around the 1000 level OTB, are in the 700s. 1200 OTB players seem to be around 1000 blitz, etc...

We really could've ended this thread 18 months ago.  One thing I've seen a 1.000 correlation with on this site are North Korea flags and blatant trolling behavior.  And my sample size is greater than 1.

Adam:"That guy is selecting a population of players who haven't played a lot of games, so of course his results are different than mine.  I won't exactly definite what I consider active, but here's a sample of 10 that 100% confirm my hypothethis.  I won't show any of my work and I will argue with anyone that disagrees with me and call them stupid as well as insult them as being from inferior American chess playing stock."

jcbutler: "I only choose people who are very active and here's is my definition of active along with the population of 80 people that show a much lower difference than the 250 Adam claims".

I think it's possible to compare chess.com blitz to USCF/FIDE elo using a formula that will be generally accurate on average.  I also think it's possible that at certain rating bands, a +- 250 difference in blitz/USCF rating is possible, likely at the extreme ends of the rating system.  But not across the entire spectrum.  My USCF is +150 more than my chess.com blitz which is almost exactly the difference jcbutler gives and 100 less than the formula you give as being correct "almost every time".  I would also consider myself active in both rating pools using any reasonable definition of the word active.

Its not my fault you lack reading comprehension. I was quite clear about my definition.

"Instead of addressing all of your points, I will find one phrase to nitpick".

I've already addressed all of your points. Repeatedly.

You know what has a really depressing correlation? USCF rating with the [redacted by staff] "3-minute" rating. You see GMs with ratings between 2000-2100, IMs with 1950. Not all by any means, but enough.

And that's a rating that people should theoretically care about MORE, since it has the real value of helping choose your next opponent.

Yep, and if a huge number of IMs have a 3min blitz chess.com rating between 2000-2200, you have tangible evidence there to determine a correlation.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that most of the people on this thread stridently arguing against von Rinkleff's hypothesis (Smyslov Dude, Nameenohad, and that Canadian guy) are doing so for personal rather than objective reasons.

If this is true, any ideas as to an explanation?

Well yes, actually.  I have read every single word of every post in this thread since it began in the Fall of 2012.

Neemohad thinks that any attempt at correlating OTB ratings to Chess.com ratings somehow will give engine cheaters more "cover".  He has explicitly said that in this thread.  Why exactly he thinks this, I do not know.

The Canadian dude just clearly dislikes von Rinkleff personally.  Even if von Rinkleff would say the sky is blue the Canadian dude will be like "No, you're an ass and you suck, so the sky is not blue."

I do not know what Smyslov's angle is.  Smyslov seems like a pretty serious chess player though.  Perhaps he finds comparing USCF (serious) to internet ratings (non serious) to be offensive?  Blasphemous even?  

John, I argued for Adam for a clear reason, I agree with what he is saying and know many examples.

Well, some of these people are arguing on other threads as well, so you might say it is a way of life for them. That's the definition of troll: someone who bounces from thread to thread, starting arguments and never stopping. They even created a "society" which spams chess.com with endless arguments and unnecessary negativity. If I seem rude, its only because I've seen them before, and I'm tired of them hijacking threads for their own views (because nobody wants to post in threads they start). These are the kind of people who you wouldn't have to argue with in real-life, because they wouldn't be invited to the discussion.

John is taking about a different Canadian.