Originally posted by KatastroofThe charts show the number of players at each rating level based on their performance.
I'm confused.Your rating is calculated by the rating of your opponents and the results you scored against them.Right?Then what are these charts for?
Also,how does this distribution work?Does the USCF,and their counterparts,simply get to choose what rating they attribute to a certain percentage scoring?
Originally posted by wormwoodI used the non-scholastic figures which obviously omits beginning players in school.
finnish national SELO ratings:
looks closer to ECF than USCF on the lower levels... I've noticed the big number of low rated american players on CTS as well, I don't think what's visible here is just a coincidence.
I'm guessing it has to do with national chess culture. there's no sc ...[text shortened]... ere is a lot of beginning players in u.s. who stop the second there's no chess in school.
Originally posted by no1marauderthe recent ECF adjustment might also be the cause. in the recent thread about it many of the lower rated ECF players seemed to feel that their new ratings are undeservedly high.
I used the non-scholastic figures which obviously omits beginning players in school.
It seems clear that the differences in formulas for the rating systems lead to highly different results. These are closed systems; it seems highly unlikely that the average Brit tournament player is truly much stronger than the average American one. Ther ...[text shortened]... be adjusted accordingly when you attempt to compare an American player's rating to a Brit one.
Originally posted by wormwoodThis is the post by Squelchbelch a while back that got me thinking about this:
the recent ECF adjustment might also be the cause. in the recent thread about it many of the lower rated ECF players seemed to feel that their new ratings are undeservedly high.
Originally posted by no1marauderoh, right. that might explain it. -although his explanation of the skills of a 1500 also fit my CC perfectly. I haven't seen any kind of categorical differences so far, there's no "different language", my openings are not very good, endings are crap, middlegame strategy ad hoc, and practically all of my moves are based on simple 2-move 'analysis'. most of my errors are still due to simple evaluation errors after a single move. not usually dropping stuff, but underestimating simple moves which create big problems.
This is the post by Squelchbelch a while back that got me thinking about this:
1500 is below average club player:
Basic opening knowledge, spotting routine tactics for both sides, some prophylaxis, some strategy, basic endgame knowledge, sound thought process etc...
2000+ (OTB or CC) is like a different language. C ...[text shortened]... be in the lowest 10% or so of rated players. It seems we were comparing apples and oranges.