A prior thread confirmed that 1200 was average by design, but what does that mean? The average would still be 1200 if RHP had all the world's worst players. On the other hand, the world's very worst players probably do not have ratings because they do not play.
Does anyone know if average offical rating also is 1200 by design?
Can anyone with an official rating compare it to their RHP rating?
The amount of time given to make a move has a HUGE impact on ratings, at least it does in my case. In online blitz, mostly at 2 12 speeds, my rating is 1100 - 1200. In over-the-board play, in official rated tournaments, I have been around 1450 for long time. On RHP I'm currently rated 1730. One of the main reasons my rating is higher here is that I can use the "analyze board" and move the pieces around. This breaks the touch move rule that is enforced in over-the-board play, but since it is a feature provided by RHP, I make full use of it. Analyzing variations in your mind is always difficult, and people like to talk about "how many moves ahead can you see?" Of course there is never a clear answer to that question, as it depends on the position, but being allowed to move the pieces around on the board is a BIG advantage, and leads to fewer mistakes. I'm not sure that it helps improve your game however, since analyzing in your head must be practised, and on this site it is easy to become lazy...
Originally posted by headcrashThat's funny, mine is exactly the same, 1550-1600 whatever the site (except playchess.de, there im 1800 for some reason 😕)
The amount of time given to make a move has a HUGE impact on ratings, at least it does in my case. In online blitz, mostly at 2 12 speeds, my rating is 1100 - 1200. In over-the-board play, in official rated tournaments, I have been around 1450 for long time. On RHP I'm currently rated 1730. One of the main reasons my rating is higher here is that I ca ...[text shortened]... r, since analyzing in your head must be practised, and on this site it is easy to become lazy...
I think this site requires a different style of chess. On blitz sites you can get away with all kinds of risky sacrafices because of the time. This site requires much more positional/strategic consideration, im learning a lot 😉
Originally posted by headcrashI have to disagree, i have a BCF (British chess federation) rating at the moment. It is about 95 (which i think is about 1200-1300 elo). I am much stronger than that. I have beaten players that are bcf 180!
In my case, I suck under time pressure. On RHP if I get in trouble I can walk away until tomorrow - or longer! Eventually a good move may become clear to me. I feel that my blitz and RHP ratings are both inaccurate. My over-the-board rating is the only one I consider real.
The reson my rating is so low is because i've only played 5 games!!!! I am constantly (if perhaps slowly) improving. My BCF rating can't reflect this as it is comprissed of so few games and is only updated anually. On Yahoo i've completed some 700 games, i feel my rating there (if only perhaps for blitz) is far more accurate. If i selected my opponents carefully to get my rating as high as possible then it could be considered inaccurate but i generally only play stronger players so i recon it's about right.
IMO, the question does not make a lot of sense, even if we would set aside the fact that CC and OTB level could be very different for the same person. On RHP everyone is pretty flexible in selecting his/her opponents, color of the pieces and time control. By choosing opponents, person has a lot of freedom to control his rating (if he/she wishes so of course🙂). You would never get such luxury neither in OTB, nor in official CC competitions. Look: two players here could earn the same rating by taking a lot of wins over weaker players or fewer wins over stronger ones, and second rating is much more valuable although they are equal. Timeouts ratio is also the factor. For me ratings here is more like rough measure to help player to get desirable level of opposition.
Originally posted by TovMauzerJa. When I play in a tournament they make me play the white men and every player twice. I found that in a tournament every move is important. I found tournaments exciting and upsetting. A players rating can be deceptive. I have seen players that had a low rating, but they had played several players that were four hundred or more points above there rating and lost.
IMO, the question does not make a lot of sense, even if we would set aside the fact that CC and OTB level could be very different for the same person. On RHP everyone is pretty flexible in selecting his/her opponents, color of the pieces and time control. By choosing opponents, person has a lot of freedom to control his rating (if he/she wishes so of cours ...[text shortened]... me ratings here is more like rough measure to help player to get desirable level of opposition.
Originally posted by TovMauzerRight - there's another piece of the puzzle I hadn't considered. In a typical Swiss style tournament, if you win your game the next player you face is likely to be tougher. On RHP no such thing happens, so your rating can continue to climb if you defeat weaker players. That further explains my somewhat inflated rating.
Look: two players here could earn the same rating by taking a lot of wins over weaker players or fewer wins over stronger ones, and second rating is much more valuable although they are equal.
Originally posted by mike blockBy the way, if you are interested how USCF OTB ratings are calculated, take a look at this page: http://math.bu.edu/people/mg/ratings/approx/approx.html (simplified) or here: http://math.bu.edu/people/mg/ratings/rs/rs2.html (actual).
I never had a rating before coming here and had not played much for 40+ years. That is why I wanted to try to better understand ratings, so thank you all for your comments.
FIDE ratings calculation is slightly different, but close.
RHP formula is not ELO based.
Should your ratings really depend on where you play (assuming of course ratings are caluculated the same way)? Sure, if you play blitz chess you don't have the time to analyse your moves like you do here, but neither does your opponents. I think it is more a question of style. A go for the throat sacrificing type of player may stun the opponent in blitz, but here that kind of move may be easily refuted. Sure you can use the analysis board here, but does everyone?
btw, I'm starting to worry that too much reliance on the analysis board is starting to hurt my otb play. Anybody else have the same thought?
Originally posted by mike blockHmmm... you have not played chess for 40 years, you have a wife for 40 years now...
I never had a rating before coming here and had not played much for 40+ years. That is why I wanted to try to better understand ratings, so thank you all for your comments.
Is there a link here?! 😉
P-
Originally posted by headcrash
Right - there's another piece of the puzzle I hadn't considered. In a typical Swiss style tournament, if you win your game the next player you face is likely to be tougher. On RHP no such thing happens, so your rating can continue to climb if you defeat weaker players. That further explains my somewhat inflated rating.
That's one of the reasons why we need an annual or biannual competition system (Who will be the strongest RHP player ?) for individual players.