Originally posted by PhlabibitTalking of which and not really related, how is the rating here in comparison to ELO rating or FIE rating, would you half your RHP rating for a rough ELO rating or are they totally incomparable?
Chess rating is chess rating is chess rating. They often can't be compared. If RHP were to change the rating system so we were all rated 200 points lower would you say it's the better site?
It's a number, in this case different numbers mean the same thing. You are not any better on one site or the other, you just get a different rating.
P-
Just curious really.
Originally posted by Pigface1rhp rating is an elo rating. and no, you can't compare ratings between different rating pools by any formula, there's no mathematical grounds for that.
Talking of which and not really related, how is the rating here in comparison to ELO rating or FIE rating, would you half your RHP rating for a rough ELO rating or are they totally incomparable?
Just curious really.
Originally posted by wormwoodsomehow you can by using players that have ratings in both systems...you can make some statistical comparison
rhp rating is an elo rating. and no, you can't compare ratings between different rating pools by any formula, there's no mathematical grounds for that.
Originally posted by vipiuit's only as good as a vague guess though, and won't really work for anybody else except the exactly average player. the deviation will be huge and nonlinear, and a lot of the projections will go hundreds of points off in either direction. there's just no way to build a function between two different player pools, even if the rating algorithm was exactly the same in both systems.
somehow you can by using players that have ratings in both systems...you can make some statistical comparison
we've already seen it here many times when the generic newbie starts the "what's your rhp and uscf" questionnaire once or twice every month. the ratings vary something like 400-600 pts in either direction, which makes any kind of 'formula' a shot in the dark.
and it doesn't help that any rating is quite unreliable to begin with. there are 1600s and there are 1600s as we all know. a rating is just a number describing a player's past performance against an imaginary 'average player' which he might not even ever have played. it says nothing about how well he's going to play in the next game.
1 edit
Originally posted by wormwoodSorry for that 🙂
we've already seen it here many times when the generic newbie starts the "what's your rhp and uscf" questionnaire once or twice every month.
I was looking at ICC, to anyone who has played there, is there a free membership option as there is here? I want to use that site as a second site to this but dont want full membership th ...[text shortened]... sts to me that after it has finished you cannot play at all unless you pay, am I right or wrong?
Originally posted by Pigface1you can play one week for free on icc. but the subscription is well worth the price.
Sorry for that 🙂
I was looking at ICC, to anyone who has played there, is there a free membership option as there is here? I want to use that site as a second site to this but dont want full membership th sts to me that after it has finished you cannot play at all unless you pay, am I right or wrong?
try translating the price into pints of beer, that always puts prices to perspective for me.
Originally posted by wormwoodAmen.
you can play one week for free on icc. but the subscription is well worth the price.
try translating the price into pints of beer, that always puts prices to perspective for me.
I stopped playing at ICC in 2003, but returned again recently. I've hardly been on FICS since, and wonder why when I go. One year at ICC is the price of one bottle of good bourbon, two of decent wine, and eight pints of beer in a pub. That's almost free!
Originally posted by Pigface1The two serve different purposes--one is for blitz, the other for correspondence.
So there is no limited free membership at all?
Hmm, well at the moment I am out of work or normally I would subscribe, but I chose this site and would not use ICC as much as here I think.
Thanks
Originally posted by wargamer66I've also noticed that some people have a record rating hundreds of points higher from years ago, but always thought they've just gotten old or something... it would be nice to know if someone had an engine playing there in the nineties and today with exactly the same hardware and settings, and whether there has been any significant changes in the engine's rating over time.
I went back to FICS after several years away and im fighting for my life against 1300 and 1400 players. Back in the day, my high was 1900 there, but things have sure changed.
I doubt cheating has a big influence on the suggested deflation, but it could be that for example the average user today trained more than before. people are analyzing their games with fritz for improvement, training tactics online, motivating each others in online chess communities etc. etc...
1 edit
Originally posted by wormwoodI'd prefer to believe that deflation is due to improved training. However, my experience at FICS suggests serious deflation over the past several years, while inflation seem to be the case at ICC and playchess. The critical difference between FICS and the others, as earlier noted, is the lack of controls at FICS.
I doubt cheating has a big influence on the suggested deflation, but it could be that for example the average user today trained more than before. people are analyzing their games with fritz for improvement, training tactics online, motivating each others in online chess communities etc. etc...
I should say however, that the 5 0 pool at ICC seems to have suffered deflation. There, 1300 players exhibit endgame skills that are almost wholly absent among many 1600 players at FICS.