FIDE vs Chess.com ratings explained

 My fide rating was 1007 at  my first  and last event at sometime  in the year2015 and  my  blitz rating was 1475  in January 2016  but presently  it is 1333, what roughly could my fide rating be estimated?

All true, the only problem: I wasn't talking about rating differences between Standard/Blitz/etc., but about the differences *inside* one pool, compared to the single FIDE "pool".

 my rating is 1641 in fide but here about 1900  mainly because i dont play too much fide tournament 

Does anyone know ACF ratings to FIDE? or chess.com to ACF?

I think ratings down under are pretty strange U2200 FIDE strength.  A close friend of mine has been playing down there for years.  Despite a USCF peak of 1500 and a USCF rating of currently around 1430, he's 1700 (FIDE) in the NZ and Aussie playing pool, and his ACF rating corresponds to FIDE 1800-ish, according to the calculators.  It's such a different population, largely cut off from the regular FIDE population, that I don't think there is any rating comparison possible, based on my little evidence.  Remember, ratings just tell you where, within a statistical population, you reside.  It is contextual, and so it is believable that there'd be no basis for comparison, unless you actually played in the other pools of players.

[COMMENT DELETED - MOD]

You are trying to compare a highly controlled environment like FIDE tournament ratings with the Wild Wild West where anything goes Chess.com? To put it mildly, Chess.com ratings are stupendously meaningless. If ratings are important, play OTB tournaments.

Yep... and yep.

Great Post! thank you.

Great post

good explaining

thanks

In a month you can play more rated online games, than you ever will in OTB FIDE rated tournaments IN AN ENTIRE YEAR. Because of that my uneducated guess is that the chess.com rating is a more accurate estimate of a players ability. Almost like a PERFORMANCE RATING. Deduct 100points if that makes you feel better guys lol. But I think its pretty darn good.

Let us not forget that the Elo rating is an ESTIMATION of a players ability.

Between people not generally willing/able to exert full ability in online games and the cheating that goes on, online ratings are hardly meaningful. The tell more about one's growth than they do about objective relative strength with respect to a population, and sometimes not even that much.

Your calculations might be correct, but your idea is wrong. You just compare mean values for fide rated players and chess.com ratings and it is wrong on so many levels. You did not consider the fact that players who have FIDE rating are usually way stronger than average chess.com player. Because in order to get FIDE rating you should participate in real certified FIDE tournament and:

"For an unrated player’s first performance to count, he must play at least 3 games against rated opponents; score at least 1 point; and the rating based on the tournament result at its conclusion must be at least 1000."

Moreover, people on chess.com can be very weak and still have a rating. My consideration can be supported by above comments who say that their FIDE rating and chess.com rating are not supported according to your calculations

chess.com is not an over the board rating

1. I play chess in 8 years old and win a tournament. But in next year, I lost, so I study in school and never play a chess tournament and of course no teacher. I am only play with my father. So I don't have fire rating, uscf rating but now I play in chess.com and have 1900 blitz peak is 2046 it is not very weak so I think if you want to be strong on otb you must play much and try hard in real life. If you want strong in chess.com, play much in it

Ок

Why can't chess.com use the Elo rating system? 

Chess.com uses an improved form of the elo system, with one flaw: The initial ratings should be set as "unrated". 

The formulae are complex, but it's basically the same thing as the elo system, except that it can handle many games being played in a short span, and also a player who plays only occasionally.