What is the average rating in the USCF?

As the title suggests, I'm curious about the average rating of USCF members. I've heard that it's actually around 500, but is that really the truth? That seems much too low, as I rarely see any players under 700.

When they include the mass of scholastic players the average goes way down. If just adults then the average will be much higher. In the 70s the mathematical average was something like 1540 for all players (much fewer scholastics then).

What's a USCF Rating ?

In 2004, the average for all USCF members was 1068.  The average for non-scholastic members was 1198, and the average for scholastic members was 668.  The present averages are probably similar (I don't think that the USCF publishes these data any more).

Tnx.

Is 700 USCF the same as 700 scholastic?

in 2007 there were 94k uscf rated members (aprox) 47k of which were 799 or below.. if you throw out those players the middle spot of the remaining players is about 1350ish.. It really just depends on where you choose your cutoff point.

In my mind the average tournament player should be somewhere around 1500-1600

has anyone done a study to try and compare online chess rankings (not just here, of course, but at ICC, yahoo, whatever) and USCF ratings? I did a quick google, but didn't come across anything. 

There is no comparison - the only thing you can get from a rating is how you stand vs the pool of players you play against.

If you want to know what your OTB rating would be.. get out there and play!

Average or median?

The problem with using average instead of median is you could have 4 1200 ranked players and Garry Kasparov in a pool - which would give you an average rating of 1520 vs a median of 1200 haha.

In a round robin it would feel like the "average player" was a lot more like 1200.

Now with something as odd as the uscf player pool - Which is better? the average rating is going to be ridiculously low.. but 40k of the USCF's players only play each other and only for a brief period of time. Maybe every scholastic player should get a game with Hikaru Nakamura or Gata Kamsky in their provisional period :)

Well, I suppose in this case the median would be accurate given all the low rated scholastic players. Does anyone know the median?

Looking at the 2004 data (Post 4), it looks as if the given averages are the median.

According to wikipedia the median chess rating for the uscf in 2007 was 657- clearly you need to throw out the bottom 40k players however you choose to do the math.

That wasn't the purpose. It was more academic. But I reject the idea that there is no comparison as a statistical matter. Mere anecdotal evidence should dissuade us of that. There is almost certainly a correlation. 

Of course, there are lots of intervening variables: speed chess (what tends to get played online a lot) is not the same as OTB, how seriously people take a game varies a lot too.

But to suggest there is no comparison, no relation, no correlation seems patently false. The research may not exist, but that doesn't mean some sort of relation is not out there.

And no. I don't expect there ever to be a simple "Your USCF rating would be X if you have Y on chess.com." But over the aggregate, it seems likely you could make some intelligent comment on how they are connected.

It is interesting that the average USCF seems to be very low. The average ECF, in comparison, is 133, which equates to (roughly) 1664 USCF. Either the English have loads of great club players, or something else is going on... perhaps only stronger players pluck up the courage to go and compete in tournaments and matches?

As mentioned already, it's because the vast majority of USCF members are "scholastic" - young kids. They show up to a couple of tournaments, get a 300 rating, and are never heard from again. If you only look at adult players, I think I saw a few years ago that the average was around 1400. And even that includes some weak players who showed up once, got clobbered, and never came back.

True, perhaps the 9-game minimum (8 for juniors?) on the ECF system means that many juniors who just play a single 6-game tournament never actually get graded. Even so, 133 is surprisingly high.

That's really surprising. Around here, the adult clubs generally have mostly players in the 1200-1800 range, with a few higher rated, and a few (mostly kids) lower rated. At the big tournaments that attract 150-200 people and are divided into sections, the sections with the most people are usually U1600 and U1800. I'm not sure why, but U1400 tends to be the smallest section, with U1200 even having more, though that's usually the lowest, so it gets most of the kids, as well as adult beginners.

But I'd definitely agree that the average at adult clubs and tournaments around here seems to be around 1500.

I can't believe there are tens of thousands of players rated around 700.  I didn't want to go to a tournament until I felt like I was somewhat competent.  Seems like some are jumping into tournaments right after learning the rules...  I know it's mostly kids, but seriously if you're going to push them into chess right after learning the rules why make it a big time official USCF event?  Have them play their friends at school or something.