| |
Main
Date: 14 Oct 2007 12:57:35
From: Terry
Subject: Chess ratings
|
I used to play chess at Blitzin as an un rated player. I would guess
my rating based on the strength of the players I could beat would be
around 1400. I now play at Yahoo. My rating is 1370.
Anyone know what kind of USCF rating that would equal? Pretty bad
huh?
|
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 11:58:29
From: foot
Subject: Re: Chess ratings
|
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:15:43 -0400 Terry <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> I can beat many casual players, but I don't think I could beat anyone
> good enough to enter a tournament.
You don't have to be good to enter a tournament. In some tournaments,
particularly scholastic ones, people who barely know the rules
participate... so you'd probably have no problem beating them...
But winning games, while nice, shouldn't be the only aim of
participating in tournaments. Playing slow, serious games in a
tournament environment offers a lot of potential for learning that you
might not get from casual online play. And over-the-board tournaments
are a fun and interesting side of the game that I think most casual
players would benefit from experiencing, but are rarely ever exposed to.
In short, I encourage you to try playing in some tournaments, no matter
how you perform or expect yourself to perform... and you might also
want to just stop by your local chess club and play some people there
who have USCF or FIDE ratings... and, depending on how you do against
them, you might get a rough idea of what your own rating might be...
though, again, playing in over-the-board tournament conditions is a
whole different ball of wax than in casual games and/or online.
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 09:03:50
From: Richard
Subject: Re: Chess ratings
|
On Oct 14, 12:57 pm, Terry <[email protected] > wrote:
> I used to play chess at Blitzin as an un rated player. I would guess
> my rating based on the strength of the players I could beat would be
> around 1400. I now play at Yahoo. My rating is 1370.
>
> Anyone know what kind of USCF rating that would equal? Pretty bad
> huh?
Any comparison ratings from different systems is generally going to be
unreliable. The playing conditions are different, the possibility for
cheating is higher on the internet, and even if there is no
intentional cheating, just having the ability to choose your own
opponents and what color you're playing can influence your ratings
greatly.
That said, I've found that at lower levels, among players who don't
cheat and take their internet ratings somewhat seriously, most
internet ratings tend to be inflated by around 300-400 compared to
USCF ratings.
But the best way to find out what your USCF rating would be is to go
play in some tournaments and get one.
--Richard
|
| | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 14:15:43
From: Terry
Subject: Re: Chess ratings
|
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 09:03:50 -0700, Richard <[email protected] >
wrote:
>On Oct 14, 12:57 pm, Terry <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I used to play chess at Blitzin as an un rated player. I would guess
>> my rating based on the strength of the players I could beat would be
>> around 1400. I now play at Yahoo. My rating is 1370.
>>
>> Anyone know what kind of USCF rating that would equal? Pretty bad
>> huh?
>
>Any comparison ratings from different systems is generally going to be
>unreliable. The playing conditions are different, the possibility for
>cheating is higher on the internet, and even if there is no
>intentional cheating, just having the ability to choose your own
>opponents and what color you're playing can influence your ratings
>greatly.
>
>That said, I've found that at lower levels, among players who don't
>cheat and take their internet ratings somewhat seriously, most
>internet ratings tend to be inflated by around 300-400 compared to
>USCF ratings.
>
>But the best way to find out what your USCF rating would be is to go
>play in some tournaments and get one.
>
>--Richard
I am pretty sure I could not beat anyone that takes chess seriously
enough to actually go outside and compete.
I can beat many casual players, but I don't think I could beat anyone
good enough to enter a tournament.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 17:29:06
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Chess ratings
|
Richard <[email protected] > wrote:
> That said, I've found that at lower levels, among players who don't
> cheat and take their internet ratings somewhat seriously, most
> internet ratings tend to be inflated by around 300-400 compared to
> USCF ratings.
Sorry, one of my pet peeves.
The internet rating isn't `inflated', it's just higher. Inflation is
a process whereby ratings drift upwards over time, due to a number of
factors. There is no drift here, it's just a different scale. A fair
analogy would be to say that ``Europeans `rate' road distances in
kilometers but the British and Americans `rate' them in miles. This
means that the European distances are inflated by a factor of about
1.6.'' The European distance isn't `inflated'; it's just on a
different scale.
And there's no one `internet rating'. There's no reason to expect a
person's rating on one internet site to be the same as their rating on
any other, or to expect it to be the same as their FIDE or USCF
rating.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Addictive Technicolor Chainsaw (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a lethal weapon but it's
in realistic colour and you can never
put it down!
|
|
