About Fide and chess.com onlinerating.
The below 1800 fiderated players that I know , who also are her, have higher onlinrating,but I am not sure about that over 2000. I have 1600 online,are not Fiderated, but guesstimates that I can play exiting games with 1400 Fide-players.
In my case, it is FIDE > USCF > Chess.com blitz. Further, FIDE-Chess.com = 32.
I think that "Smyslov Fan" should explicitly state his objections to von Rinkleff's hypothesis, and the motivations thereof.
I think that "Smyslov Fan" should explicitly state his objections to von Rinkleff's hypothesis, and the motivations thereof.
My objections are simple: He is wrong, and insulting to anyone who challenges him. When his errors are pointed out, he does not admit them. Instead, he goes back and retro-edits his comment then says that the person who pointed out his error cannot read.
When people actually did the work and came up with a formula for a rough estimate to compare USCF with chess.com, he claimed it was the same as his. Adam's claim was that the difference was "2-300" rating points.
Adam has stated,
" USCF = chess.com + 200 is really not very different from USCF = chess.com (0.93) + 283."
Now, let's plug in some numbers:
Rating: 1000 *.93=930+283=1213 (a difference of 213)
Rating: 1200 *.93+283= 1399 (a difference of 199)
Rating: 1500 * .93+283=1678 (a difference of 178)
Rating: 2000 * .93+283=2143 (a difference of 143)
Rating: 2300 *.93+283=2422 (a difference of 122)
His claim that ratings are 200-300 rating points off is wrong by about half a standard deviation or more for players rated 1500-2300. If he had said that the ratings were off by about 100-200 points, he would have been right, for the most part.
He used racist and nationalist claims to support his thesis. His tone has been mocking, superior, and offensive.
Finally, he talks about ratings inflation as if USCF is the gold standard of ratings and all other systems should match it. There is no gold standard, either in the financial world or in the world of ratings. Each rating system is independent of others as long as they measure different populations. There are obviously correlations, but that is not the same thing.
His claim that ratings are 200-300 rating points off is wrong by about half a standard deviation or more
Wow, my hypothesis was only off by half a standard deviation? That's pretty good, right? I seem to remember Smyslov that you originally said I was completely wrong, but now you are nitpicking over minor differences. Since we are now talking about the most accurate formula to estimate deflation, I guess we are finally in agreement that chess.com is deflated?
He used racist and nationalist claims to support his thesis.
Now you are just making stuff up.
Now, let's plug in some numbers:
Rating: 1000 *.93=930+283=1213 (a difference of 213)
The difference between 1200 and 1213 is a marginal difference of one percent. However, we aren't in agreement about the correct formula. I already told you (three times) that jcbutler used different criteria than me when defining what an "active" or "accurate" rating is.
Hurray! Smyslov finally admits the truth. Chess.com ratings are deflated, and his personal estimate is a mere 100 points different than mine.
Huzzah!
Good job.
gg.
/thread
Agreed, Petrip. To claim that one rating system is inflated/deflated because it doesn't match another rating system measuring a different population shows a lack of understanding of how ratings work.
The problem here is not the comparison of USCF to chess.com, but the comparison of blitz to standard time controls. Like-to-like comparisons would be more informative.
Like-to-like comparisons would be more informative.
Would they? People who play a lot of standard USCF don't typically play standard chess.com.
Wait I thought the comparison was against chess.com live blitz. Am I wrong, or did it change to standard along the way?
Wait I thought the comparison was against chess.com live blitz. Am I wrong, or did it change to standard along the way?
No, its against blitz. People play blitz here more than standard.
The comparison is USCF standard vs. Chess.com blitz.
It's obvious, that people aren't paying attention.
Yet they choose to argue.
Quite unreasonable.
LOOOL
It's pretty much conclusively proven that one's Chess.com blitz ratings will be 200 points lower than his own USCF rating.
you should think about the USCF rating being inflated, not the chess.com rating...
USCF ratings > chess.com ratings > FIDE ratings
(a person's USCF rating will be higher than their FIDE rating, and their chess.com rating will be in the middle).
You're totally wrong, brah. I suggest learning something and reading this thread thoroughly. Take notes brah.