One way to make a better comparative assessment would be to compare the bell-shaped curves of the rating systems. Go by your percentile rank, not the rating number.
That's not going to tell you anything unless you have a way to compare the two populations. The top 1% of Chess.com is not the same as the top 1% of FIDE.
Thanks for all the advice. I think you're right OrangeHonda, I've been studying tactics almost exclusively since I took the game up again, maybe I need to include more positional and planning work as I (hopefully) get stronger.
Also, in the 15-minute OTB tournament I've been playing I did initially find my 'vision' much worse in 3D than it is in 2D. But i suppose that will improve the more OTB I play.
Seems the general consensus is that my rating's probably going to be a few hundred less OTB than it is in correspondence chess (and another factor there is a couple of high-rated opponents timing out), but I suppose there's only one way to find out for certain.
... but I suppose there's only one way to find out for certain.
And then it will mean something, too. Enjoy chess as it is meant to be enjoyed with all the ups and downs of a weekend tournament. Be careful, though, you might spend even more time online looking for training to improve.
I thought I was a Class A player when I scored that well in Bruce Pandolfini's column in Chess Life and beat Chessmaster "personalities" at that level. After my first OTB tournament, I had a provisional rating of 1250. After my first five tournaments, I had an established rating of 1490. After fourteen years of tournament play (and more than 46,000 games online), I am a Class A player.
Pithy does not necessarily mean wise. Karpov once blundered a piece to Christiansen on something like move 11. Using your "logic" had Karpov retired then he would have been a patzer.
Emptymethod, if you are making claims to "logic" in what you said then I don't have a clue as to what you could possibly mean when you use the word. Why would you call a grandmaster losing to another grandmaster a "patzer"? I never knew "pithy" meant "wise" for anyone, let alone that it does not "necessarily" mean that. If you want to tell your story about Karpov and Christiansen, why would you use what I said to launch into it? Very unusual, Empty.
Pithy does not necessarily mean wise. Karpov once blundered a piece to Christiansen on something like move 11. Using your "logic" had Karpov retired then he would have been a patzer.
Emptymethod, if you are making claims to "logic" in what you said then I don't have a clue as to what you could possibly mean when you use the word. Why would you call a grandmaster losing to another grandmaster a "patzer"? I never knew "pithy" meant "wise" for anyone, let alone that it does not "necessarily" mean that. If you want to tell your story about Karpov and Christiansen, why would you use what I said to launch into it? Very unusual, Empty.
Karpov's blunder is in every elementary tactics book. It is almost unbelievable that he would make such a mistake. Now if I had done it on a morning sunday round.. yeah that could happen.
1378
no, 1379
Chess.com doesn't use the standard ELO rating system - it uses Glicko.
My ECF rating is 142 although last season I averaged 160 ECF - however, my grade was dropped slightly because I only played 22 games and one game got lost, so only 21 were registered for this season. The additional game would only have made a maximum of 2 points either side but unfortunately, four results from 2005 were used when calculating my ECF grade which were at an average of 45 ECF!! These dragged me back this year.
ECF grades have, however, undergone changes as well and a lot of players have been uprated so I am guessing that my 142 grade will adjust upwards slightly this season (perhaps to 150) if I put in a decent performance and play to my ability.
ECF conversion to FIDE is: ECFx8+650 or in my case 1786. A grade of 160 would have given me FIDE rating equivalent of 1930.
That said, the ECF grades I think are pretty meaningless unless you have had a consistent grade over several seasons at ECF of 170 or above (i.e. you have reached your potential). Over here in England, a 170 grade is considered a pretty decent standard.
I'm not certain how FIDE translates to USCF but I am told it's pretty similar.
My ratings on here don't reflect anywhere near my FIDE equivalent rating of 1786 - I seem to be stuck in the low 1600's. I've started playing more bullet chess and more longer play chess as well and I have noticed an upward trend.
The Glicko system (which I think is the Australian system that's used) is more accurate than FIDE and note should be taken of the Glicko RD (Ratings Deviation) To get a real rating on here, you double the Glicko RD (the lower the number, the more games you have played recently) and that gives you your range. EG my Bullet rating as I write this is 1641 with a RD of 68. 68 x 2 = 136 so my true bullet grade is between 1505 and 1777. My blitz rating is 1615 with a RD of 38. So my range is 38 x 2 = 76. 1615-76 = 1539 and 1615+76= 1691 so my true blitz grade lies between 1539 and 1691. My standard rating is 1591 with a RD of 158 as I haven't really played much apart from blitz on here! that gives me a true standard rating of between 1275 and 1907. Simple enough?!
On chesscube (I don't play on there anymore but still have an account), my rating went up to around 1900.
I don't consider myself much good at blitz but I do seem to hold my own on here. Over the board, I'm fairly inconsistent even in our standard league games (35 moves in 75 minutes then a 15 minute quickplay finish). I played in a 30 minute tournament not so long ago and achieved a dismal 2.5 out of 6 so my rapidplay grade is probably in the 120's despite me beating two strong players. I had an overwhelming position in two of my three losses (and plenty of time!) but was obviously having a bad day! I think most players who didn't finish in the top three would say something similar!
The comment about looking at your percentile rating is a better way of looking at things - a 1600 rating on here puts you in the top 5% of players on here in general. In terms of FIDE or ECF ratings (118.75 on conversion), 1600 doesn't put you anywhere near the top 5% of competing players, it puts you quite firmly in the journeyman section! In the UK, a grade of 140-150 puts you just above the woodpushers (i.e. it's a reasonable club standard - probably get into the second or third string at county level). A 170 rating puts you in the top end and anything over 190 is very strong.
However, with the grading system so skewed over here at the moment, it's difficult to say what's going on. I've been playing ECF rated 150+ players and am doing reasonably well but when I look back over their records, they were down in the 130's the season before last so it's going to take a few seasons to level out over here.
The ratings were changed because over time, the way the ECF grading system works, grades get eroded for various reasons. There's a whole section on it and why we can't adopt a FIDE system I don't know. With modern technology, it would be easy enough to have things changed after each tournament etc, with registered players being able to log on and get their latest rating etc. Unfortunately, the ECF has had it's annual £45K grant taken away by the government in the latest round of cutbacks. That's another story entirely - one assumes the £45,000 saved will go towards cleaning out some ministers moat or towards new flock wallpaper for a house they pretend they don't live in.
Hey,
I have very similar chess.com ratings:
I am 1800 at bullet (1 minute) (doesn't matter)
about 1500 average at 5 minute (occasionaly 1-3 second increment)
and ~1850 at correspondance (tend to take anywhere from 10 seconds to 10 minutes/move)
My USCF rating is in the 1500s I'm hoping to hit 1800 and make expert before I die :D
You have to be an expert at chess to get into heaven, I heard. Saint peter's waiting at the gates with a 3D board so be ready.
Simplest way to figure it out: See what percentile you are here, then find the same percentile USCF/FIDE. Your rating is whatever that rating is, ±100 or so points.
Simplest way to figure it out: See what percentile you are here, then find the same percentile USCF/FIDE. Your rating is whatever that rating is, ±100 or so points.
I don't think this works.
For example, take a 1st grade math test, score in the 99th percentile. That doesn't mean you'll be in the 99th percentile if you took the SAT.
+ or - 300 but really it's different for everyone. Depends on a lot of stuff, not to mention over the board ratings aren't a universal measurement in the first place. There is no conversion.
Pithy does not necessarily mean wise. Karpov once blundered a piece to Christiansen on something like move 11. Using your "logic" had Karpov retired then he would have been a patzer.
Emptymethod, if you are making claims to "logic" in what you said then I don't have a clue as to what you could possibly mean when you use the word. Why would you call a grandmaster losing to another grandmaster a "patzer"? I never knew "pithy" meant "wise" for anyone, let alone that it does not "necessarily" mean that. If you want to tell your story about Karpov and Christiansen, why would you use what I said to launch into it? Very unusual, Empty.
Karpov's blunder is in every elementary tactics book. It is almost unbelievable that he would make such a mistake. Now if I had done it on a morning sunday round.. yeah that could happen.
He overlooked Qd1 which was a retreating move. Anyone can overlook these kind of moves and every human blunders from time to time. Bronstein hung his queen against Petrosian in a winning position.
Simplest way to figure it out: See what percentile you are here, then find the same percentile USCF/FIDE. Your rating is whatever that rating is, ±100 or so points.
I don't think this works.
For example, take a 1st grade math test, score in the 99th percentile. That doesn't mean you'll be in the 99th percentile if you took the SAT.
I know the populations are different, but they overlap enough that you can get close. Your two populations are very different (1st graders vs. college entry).
So far there is parity but I have not been online for long. OTB I am 1705, live chess I am 1799 and turn based 1747. Maybe online ratings are a little inflated but not by much in my case.
That said, you do need to account for USCF's "junior" bubble. I'm pretty sure they give you the option to filter that data out.
I finished 3/6 in the U-1200 section at the last tournament I played.
It seems to me that ICU ratings at least are severely deflated
Glicko uses an assumption that I'm not aware has been proven: that recent games should have different weight than not-so-recent games.
Has anyone seen a well-designed experiment to examine this?
That said, you do need to account for USCF's "junior" bubble. I'm pretty sure they give you the option to filter that data out.
No offence to any player rated this low... but honestly I don't know what an 800 rated player is... and there seems to be players rated even lower than that. If you know how all the pieces move, and you at least casually check if moves are safe, then you will be rated above 800.
Letting these kids keep going to chess tournaments when they're obviously not the least bit serious is really a shame.
One way to make a better comparative assessment would be to compare the bell-shaped curves of the rating systems. Go by your percentile rank, not the rating number.