Which should be higher...
There is no "should." What they are is correct.
My OTB rating is highest... but none of my ratings (OTB, online, blitz) are very reliable due to infrequent playing.
It's usually online > OTB > blitz.
Which should be higher...
Sort:
shell_knight wrote:
Which should be higher...
There is no "should." What they are is correct.
My OTB rating is highest... but none of my ratings (OTB, online, blitz) are very reliable due to infrequent playing.
It's usually online > OTB > blitz.
What they are could be innacurate. There is no point in arguing that. I am interested in the patterns that emerge because, I think there is a, "sort of should" or " what to typically expect" correlation...
It's more personal than a statistic. Many people don't take internet chess as seriously as over the board, but some people do. It's just a matter of how a person plays internet chess.
Well... they're always inaccurate in terms of playing strength. But because it's impossible to measure playing strength these formula measure results. In that sense there is no inaccuracy unless the math is being done incorrectly.
As for what people feel. It's my impression most feel they're underrated. And IMO it's because there is a division between knowledge and performance. People feel they know more than they're able to show through their results. However ratings don't deal with theoretical knowledge so this feeling isn't relevant to accuracy of ratings.
Indirect wrote:
It's more personal than a statistic. Many people don't take internet chess as seriously as over the board, but some people do. It's just a matter of how a person plays internet chess.
I have considered that. I have also considered that it may benefit people more, one way or the other, compared to their peers, to have or not have the tools and time available in online chess. I think those two things and any cheating would account for the greatest variances. Then next, the differences in the sanctioning body the ratings are given through, could possibly help to determine their placement.
shell_knight wrote:
Well... they're always inaccurate in terms of playing strength. But because it's impossible to measure playing strength these formula measure results. In that sense there is no inaccuracy unless the math is being done incorrectly.
As for what people feel. It's my impression most feel they're underrated. And IMO it's because there is a division between knowledge and performance. People feel they know more than they're able to show through their results. However ratings don't deal with theoretical knowledge so this feeling isn't relevant to accuracy of ratings.
That was getting too philisophical about it. I was merely referring to the idea that a particular individual is usually learning and getting better, so their rating may not reflect their skill, regardless of how anyone feels. Also, due to cheating, they may not be accurate.
Nov 28, 2014
0
#8
my otb:
ECF= 170 (7.5*ECF+700 = FIDE)
FIDE equivalent= 1975
My Online = 1928
But I use very little time playing online games, I look at the position for a minute or 2, make a move and move on. its purely just for a bit of fun, not like using 30 mins purely thinking about 1 move otb sometimes...
thecentipede wrote:
my otb:
ECF= 170 (7.5*ECF+700 = FIDE)
FIDE equivalent= 1975
My Online = 1928
But I use very little time playing online games, I look at the position for a minute or 2, make a move and move on. its purely just for a bit of fun, not like using 30 mins purely thinking about 1 move otb sometimes...
Thanks for the post, that is very useful information...
ParadoxOfNone wrote:
shell_knight wrote:
Well... they're always inaccurate in terms of playing strength. But because it's impossible to measure playing strength these formula measure results. In that sense there is no inaccuracy unless the math is being done incorrectly.
As for what people feel. It's my impression most feel they're underrated. And IMO it's because there is a division between knowledge and performance. People feel they know more than they're able to show through their results. However ratings don't deal with theoretical knowledge so this feeling isn't relevant to accuracy of ratings.
That was getting too philisophical about it. I was merely referring to the idea that a particular individual is usually learning and getting better, so their rating may not reflect their skill, regardless of how anyone feels. Also, due to cheating, they may not be accurate.
Yes. Sometimes people don't realize ratings don't measure things like theoretical knowledge or even skill. It's always results.
Dan Heisman has some great advice for his students to remind them of this... e.g. don't be afraid of losing a game, be afraid of playing a game and not learning anything! Your rating only shadows your actual ability, etc.
shell_knight wrote:
ParadoxOfNone wrote:
shell_knight wrote:
Well... they're always inaccurate in terms of playing strength. But because it's impossible to measure playing strength these formula measure results. In that sense there is no inaccuracy unless the math is being done incorrectly.
As for what people feel. It's my impression most feel they're underrated. And IMO it's because there is a division between knowledge and performance. People feel they know more than they're able to show through their results. However ratings don't deal with theoretical knowledge so this feeling isn't relevant to accuracy of ratings.
That was getting too philisophical about it. I was merely referring to the idea that a particular individual is usually learning and getting better, so their rating may not reflect their skill, regardless of how anyone feels. Also, due to cheating, they may not be accurate.
Yes. Sometimes people don't realize ratings don't measure things like theoretical knowledge or even skill. It's always results.
Dan Heisman has some great advice for his students to remind them of this... e.g. don't be afraid of losing a game, be afraid of playing a game and not learning anything! Your rating only shadows your actual ability, etc.
This reminds me of an echo chamber, when multiple people are trying to say the say thing in their own way...lol 
...your OTB rating, or your online correspondence and why would you assert this ?
If you have an opinion or wish to see what comes of this discussion and are able to, please post your OTB rating and your online correspondence rating.