Originally posted by buddy2You can't compare different ratings and claim one site is tougher than others based solely on that.
Here are my ratings on 4 blitz sites
World Chess Network=1446
Aside from the fact that i'm pretty miserable at blitz, you can see that i'm highest on ICC and Playchess and lowest at WCN and FICS by about 100 points. That ratio has been pretty steady over about a year. You statisticians out there wi ...[text shortened]... e i'm concerned). Probably, there are plenty of people who've had the same experience. No?
Originally posted by XanthosNZExactly, the ratings relative to the general median, is all that matters, not the points
You can't compare different ratings and claim one site is tougher than others based solely on that.
What are the average ratings of the different sites? What percentile are you in for each? What is the starting rating in each?
Originally posted by buddy2you get beaten in roughly 50% of games against your peers rated the same as you on both sites.
I knew the statisticians would deny it. How about Im more likely to get beat on FICS. Would that make it a tougher bunch?
Originally posted by Falco Lombardiwhat interface? did you try babaschess? I don't think the playchess interface comes even close...
I tried playing at FICS but I didn't like the interface as well as Playchess'. On Playchess my blitz is 1810 and bullet 2011. The premove makes it a lot easier, but also adds another element to the game. Premoving too much makes you drop pieces, but premoving too little can result in a time loss.
Originally posted by ShinidokiOf course, this explains why the well-to-do Russians have dominated chess while the impoverished Americans have only managed to produce one fluke world champion.
Personally I would imagine that FICS would be the weakest crowd...
why? well, because other sites require payment.....and if your willing to spend cash on suscription i think its a good bet you'd also spend monney of books/dvds -- and actually read them.