I know this may be a tired subject (of equivalent ratings and also impossible to speculate). Also, sorry for all the list of info below. I am not being egocentric but just curious from you guys that do both RHP and OTB, what a RHP 1850 rating might equate to OTB rating.
For background, I just renewed my USCF membership which expired in 1993 and in which I had a 1577 rating in 1993 based on just a few games (<25) from 1980-1992. My last OTB tournament was in 1992.
I think the highest rated player I beat was about 1900, but I think more of a fluke. When I was age 17 (30 years ago), I beat a chess expert (2000+) when he was playing 20 simultaneous games (I was one of the 20). It was essentially blitz for him and standard chess for me.
Now that I have renewed my USCF membership (and bought a clock), I am going to play rated tournaments at the local club, and also at a larger tournament next month (supposedly $10,000 with 500 entrants). Thus, I guess I will soon find out what my OTB rating will be.
Since 1992, my chess play has been many hours and years (arguably not that productive) of Yahoo blitz. I also had a short stint a while back at RHP, and a current stint at RHP in which I am also studying openings, tactics, and end games.
My RHP rating hovers around 1850. I use the 365chess game database and the analysis board extensively. I occasionally consult the MCO. And I almost always read (and re-read) about the history/concepts and lines of the opening/defense that is being played in each game (such as from Wikipedia, MCO, etc.). I have been keeping about 60 RHP games in progress.
Any guess what my OTB rating range will be. I was guessing OTB 1650-1700.
- Joined
- 25 Jul 07
- Moves
- 27921
A while back, I collected some data points comparing RHP ratings to ECF. The results are here:
https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?hl=en_GB&key=0AiccZptlnwAxdHhjcVl3QjR5cU8wYUlyU1hYLTFnRHc&hl=en_GB&gid=0
(By an amazing coincidence, the chart displays nicely in Chrome but not at all in Firefox. Who'd have thunk it.)
There is sort of a trend line there, but there is not really enough data yet. Also the data is a little out of date now. If anyone sends me more, I'll update.
Also this ECF, not USCF, but the idea is the same.
Moon- First off, congrats! Welcome back to OTB.
I am inclined to say that given use of databases/analysis board- it will be very hard to draw any accurate conclusions about your likely rating.
Generally, a USCF 1700 player exhibits the following-
1) knows openings, sometimes into the early middlegame and probably will not get caught out very often.
2) weakness in transition from opening to middle game - going off on middle game plans that work in blitz but don't hold up to longer time controls.
3) tactical weakness - pressure or complex positions often lead to blunders.
4) minimal endgame ability - they probably know how to build a bridge in a rook endin to create the lucena position, philidor position and some pawn and king theory but since the majority of their games are decided by a minor piece (or more) they have very little practical experience in endgame play.
good luck!
Originally posted by nimzo5nimzo thanks for the reply. Of your four points, I think the first regarding openings is my weakest. I grew up playing the giuocco (and stonewall) as a kid, and the sicilian as black though no more sicilian. Currently, White 1.e4 and Black 1 . . . e5 or 1 . . . d5 is all I play.
Moon- First off, congrats! Welcome back to OTB.
I am inclined to say that given use of databases/analysis board- it will be very hard to draw any accurate conclusions about your likely rating.
Generally, a USCF 1700 player exhibits the following-
1) knows openings, sometimes into the early middlegame and probably will not get caught out very often. ...[text shortened]... minor piece (or more) they have very little practical experience in endgame play.
good luck!
For the last few months, I have been studying the Ruy (much more volume of information).
In all, for opening prep:
1. As white, I play 1.e4 exclusively for now. (Ruy or Giuocco). Trying to learn details of these two openings. Toying with the Evans gambit, the only gambit I play. I would rather play against a gambit and refute it than initiate the gambit. Refute the gambit, maintain reasonable position, trade material, diffuse any attack, simplify, and get to the end game a pawn up. And play the smart end game -- the way I used to beat adults when I was a kid. Probably just sticking with Ruy for now.
2. Also, as black, I respond 1 . . . e4 to 1.e4 exclusively, so learning these two openings (Ruy and Giuocco) helps both ways.
3. As white, I am preparing to play against the Sicilian (I am primarly using 2. c3 or 3.Bb4 and avoiding traditional lines of the Sicilian.) and against the French (I have been doing 3.Nd2 instead of 3.Nc3).
By the way, the three most common black responses to my 1.e4 I have seen on RHP is black c5, e6, and e5. I see the French more than I expected. Foruth place is probably d5 Center-Counter. And then maybe the Caro-Kann.
4. As white, I am learning generalities (not too much detail) for other less-frequent black responses to my 1.e4, such as the Scandinavian (we used to call it the Center-Counter), Caro-Kann, Alekhine, Pirc and obscure defenses. Sometimes have to play general principles and just hope to come out of the opening at least even without a disadvantage.
5. As black, I respond to white 1.d4 with 1.d5. I am studying QGD Slav and Semi-Slav. I have been thinking about QGA though I have never played that.
And I been holding my own learning how to respond as black to the white QP openings such as Colle, London, etc. I like doing a quick c5 as black against these QP openings. (Moreover, I don't fianchetto denerally, though I have noted fianchetto seems to score well in a variety of openings i the games databases).
6. As, I black, I will review how to respond to the English a litte, but not enough time right now.
7. Lastly, in general, I do not know hyper-modern stuff. I push my center pawns right away and all the way two squares. I try not to overextend a third square unless it really makes sense and is clearly supportable. As white, I love early e4, d4, c4 pawn moves where it is ok. As black, I love early e5, d5, c5 pawn moves where it is ok.
Originally posted by moon1969Your repertoire sounds pretty logical to me. I might not be so afraid of an open sicilian or nc3 in the French, but that is something you can add to later I suppose.
nimzo thanks for the reply. Of your four points, I think the first regarding openings is my weakest. I grew up playing the giuocco (and stonewall) as a kid, and the sicilian as black though no more sicilian. Currently, White 1.e4 and Black 1 . . . e5 or 1 . . . d5 is all I play.
For the last few months, I have been studying the Ruy (much more volume ...[text shortened]... d4, c4 pawn moves where it is ok. As black, I love early e5, d5, c5 pawn moves where it is ok.
- Joined
- 09 Aug 01
- Moves
- 54191
Originally posted by moon1969My RHP and USCF ratings are almost the same.
That gives me an idea. I was guestimating 150-200 points lower than RHP for me.
Do you use the games databases alot on RHP, and take a alot of time on moves on RHP? (I do).
But two facts to consider:
1) my current USCF rating is 200 points lower than it was thirty years ago; and
2) I play very quickly on RHP ;
Originally posted by moon1969Its so difficult to equate.
I know this may be a tired subject (of equivalent ratings and also impossible to speculate). Also, sorry for all the list of info below. I am not being egocentric but just curious from you guys that do both RHP and OTB, what a [b]RHP 1850 rating might equate to OTB rating.
For background, I just renewed my USCF membership which expired in 1993 and ...[text shortened]... games in progress.
Any guess what my OTB rating range will be. I was guessing OTB 1650-1700.[/b]
For instance User 447274 has USCF rating regular: 1853 USCF quick:1950
and yet her RHP rating is substantially lower that yours.
Trying to equate both your potential OTB ratings based on your USCF and RHP ratings does not compute as they say.
Originally posted by adramforallyou can also notice : in progress 399 !!
Its so difficult to equate.
For instance User 447274 has USCF rating regular: 1853 USCF quick:1950
and yet her RHP rating is substantially lower that yours.
Trying to equate both your potential OTB ratings based on your USCF and RHP ratings does not compute as they say.
that means she's actually playing a lot of bullet games
you can't compare someone who's spending 2 min on a game and another who spends 20 hours (or more) on a game !
Originally posted by shorbockIf she was playing OTB several years ago here in Texas I might know her.
you can also notice : in progress 399 !!
that means she's actually playing a lot of bullet games
you can't compare someone who's spending 2 min on a game and another who spends 20 hours (or more) on a game !
You may be right. My last USCF (2004) rating was 2059 with a high of 2159 and my rating here hovers around 1950-2000.
Originally posted by shorbockWhy not? Check the comment by cassaid4 above who has 392 games in progress!
you can also notice : in progress 399 !!
that means she's actually playing a lot of bullet games
you can't compare someone who's spending 2 min on a game and another who spends 20 hours (or more) on a game !
Just shows that it is difficult to compare like with like.
i have CFC rating which is nearly the same as USCF (CFC is deflated though so it will be smaller than USCF for ppl under the rating of 2000+).
its hard to compare OTB vs CC. in CC I for example dont try. I just give the position a look and I move (probably because Im more of a blitz player). thats why my CC rating isnt good (1540). my blitz ratings are almost always 1700.
my CFC rating is in the 1400 but thats from little tournament play. I could easily get it to 1600 minimum. its just the tournaments in canada are WAY to expensive and the distance to any tournaments is huge. (small population density and oversized country).