chess.com ratings are deflated against USCF

Well, at least there is someone here who is more dense than I am.

OP,

I agree. Blitz ratings here are lower than USCF regular. The one caveat is the presence of (c)heaters here at the higher levels, which has a downward effect you don't see in USCF regular.

what's wrong with correcting grammar? You corrected the other person's grammar.

See, this isn't that complicated people.

yeah one person agrees with your theory; it must be true. 

Dude, give it up. I'm fairly confident I've taken quite a few more math classes than you, and everybody else on this thread, unless we've got someone with an actual mathematics degree here. I'll certainly challenge any engineering or science majors. Look, I'm not bragging, I'm just saying -- I've got some genuine mathematics ability (post-calculus), and trust me: there is always an average. By definition, any finite set of numbers will have a clearly defined average.

Count the number of math textbooks which are within fifty feet of you. If that number is less than a dozen, you probably haven't read as many math textbooks as me. Just saying, cuz its true.

I'll give you some credit, since you are so pathetically desperate for recognition, as you have correctly recognized that the average is going to be skewed towards the high and low ends of the spectrum. However, I was well aware of this, which is why I did specify earlier that I was talking about the rating range from approximately 1200 to 2200 (reading comprehension, seriously). Regardless, even if we spoke of an all encompassing ratings range, there would still be an average, and its probably close to 250.

I do not understand why so many here care about their score. You cannot even trade your points in for prizes and there is no comparison at all to real OTB ratings.

How about instead you count the number of math degrees within fifty feet of you and report back?

If nothing else its a good way to hide from the resign threads.

Resigning threads are the bicycle shed of this site.

OK, but then there are better ways. Why make your personality subject to a silly score if you can make a real impact on the world and on the people you like. To who is Ozzie talking? Math degrees??

Bronstein my apologies, not talking to you. Talking to the OP.

What is interesting is that also in OTB ratings there are regional and national differences. The local play factor is still very big until a certain level.

Good to see mathematics are still valued.

I really don't think I need a math degree to calculate an average. I don't think this issue requires calculus, or even algebra. Why anyone feels compelled to exaggerate the complexity of the subject is truly beyond me.

But, since you asked, I do have a math degree. I kind of hinted at that, so I'll just say it. Yes, I do. I graduated summa cum laude, and I have a PhD. I've taken a lot of math courses, and computer-science, and I'm pretty confident about my ability to calculate an average. However, do my credentials matter? Does someone need to be a biophysicist in order to evaluate whether or not they have the flu? Does someone need to be an economist in order to recognize inflation?

Its really absurd for you to even pretend that a math degree is relevant. A high school student could calculate an average. Its simple, you sum the USCF standard ratings, and divide by the number of ratings. That's called an average. Then, you sum the Chess.com blitz ratings, and divide by the number of ratings. Finally, take the average USCF standard rating minus the average chess.com blitz rating. Look, the average is somewhere around 250 for individuals who have active ratings within both systems. Deal with it kiddos.

Verify it for yourself if you want, but quit pretending that this requires higher mathematics, which ironically I do understand and you apparently don't. I pretty much think you people are morons, because if you'd just grow up and calculate the average for yourself, you'd realize I'm right. Apparently, some of you are just too stupid to crunch the numbers for yourself.

USCF average rating (source: USCF): 1390
Chess.com blitz average rating (source: chess.com): 1140

1390- 1140 = 250

God, you people are really dense. Its embarassing. I don't need to use my math degree to figure this out. The average difference of 250 is fairly consistent across the entire rating spectrum, and its consistent for localized portions of that spectrum. Of course, there are always exceptions, but (as an average), 250 points is a fairly normal difference.

An individual with an established active USCF rating can expect to drop about 250 points when playing at chess.com. That's just a fact, its a waste of time to even try and debate it.

He Adam, Are you talking to me? You people !! Are you picking a fight or what? I did not do you anything.. What is your f****** problem :-)

No, I'm not talking to you, I don't know you at all. I'm talking to these idiots who tell me that you can't compare two ratings systems, when  you most certainly can. It's just asinine to claim otherwise. It's like comparing someone's driving record in the United States, and in France. It's not that difficult to do, and it does not require the higher mathematics which I actually am capable of doing.

"Dude, give it up. I'm fairly confident I've taken quite a few more math classes than you, and everybody else on this thread, unless we've got someone with an actual mathematics degree here. I'll certainly challenge any engineering or science majors. Look, I'm not bragging, I'm just saying -- I've got some genuine mathematics ability (post-calculus),"

Adam, you are full of crap. You admitted in your earlier post, quoted here, that you do not have a math degree. You said you would challenge anyone with an engineering or science degree (ie not someone with an actual mathematics degree). Now you say you have one, summa no less. So in addition to being a complete jerkoff, you are also a liar. Why am I not surprised.

@Adam Dear, you really need to take a chill pill.  This hair splitting is getting to you, big time.

Many players on Chess.com are playing with a copy of MCO in their laps.

Perhaps this accounts for the relative rating difference.  Who cares?

But if the rating systems are both "Glicko," a person's ratings will eventually "even out," subject to the thousands of caveats this thread has already listed.

So What?  Give it a rest.  You'll be a better man for it. 

Welcome to Internet Food Fights.  No surprises here.

Nearly every math class in a mathematics degree is post calculus.

Maybe you were trying to make a point, I don't know, it just sounded funny when you described the math you're able to do as "post-calculus"

People may be a little picky when they correctly tell you it would be better to get more data, but you're being ten times as difficult.  I think you made your point 200 posts ago or so.

I think the point you are missing in that little calculation is that on chess.com a lot of people are not part of a chessclub, people who have an uscf rating usually are part of a chessclub. Being part of a chessclub also usually means that you are a little better at playing compared to someone that isn't in one, that is of course not always the case, but in the majority it should be.

Just a thought.