Okay, here's my story. I've always been a good social player, beating most every opponent I face, even when losing winning the majority of the games. I say social setting! Meaning not all of them were USCF rated, mostly non-rated. Anyway, this is my question: After around 50 games, my gameknot.com rating was in the mid-1400s. My redhotpawn.com rating seems to be at present - after 15 games - in the 1400s. I took a tactics test in a tactics book, 303 Chess Tactics or something like that - and it rated me as tournament player, 1400s for your average tournament player. I took another test from the internet and it rated me as 1400. On yahoo, I hover between 1400-1700 on speed chess. I drew a 1500 and a 1600 player on redhotpawn.com and find I start to have trouble after 1600. But, I can still hang in there with a 1500 or 1600 player on redhotpawn.com. Isn't it fair to say I am a 1400 ELO strength to be safe? I would be happy with that rating, because it's a good player when placing it before planet Earth. Master Alex Dunne of Chess Life told me 1300 was a good Social player. So, 1400 a good rating. I can live with it anyway. 🙂 1400? What do you think?
Originally posted by powershakerYou should try to improve your play, not your rating.
Okay, here's my story. I've always been a good social player, beating most every opponent I face, even when losing winning the majority of the games. I say social setting! Meaning not all of them were USCF rated, mostly non-rated. Anyway, this is my question: After around 50 games, my gameknot.com rating was in the mid-1400s. My redhotpawn.com rat ...[text shortened]... cial player. So, 1400 a good rating. I can live with it anyway. 🙂 1400? What do you think?
If you post it like this, it sounds like your rating is the only thing you care about.
If you are a social chess player wanting to improve your play, studying openings/endgames may not be the best option due to limited time. Learning principles of good play would be a better option. I recommend "The Amatuer's Mind" by IM Jeremy Silman.
With regards to your question, we could safely say that you have a correspondence chess rating of about 1400. However remember that correspondence chess and real time chess are two different animals. Before joining GameKnot, I had registered a 1136 rating by playing in several tournaments representing my school. At GameKnot, the highest rating I ever reached was 1650, though my real GK rating is closer to 1400-1550. I had previously registered with RHP and earned a rating of 1450-1500, but I forgot my login information and continued with GameKnot. I recently quit GameKnot and switched to a new RHP account. I have not registered a RHP rating with this account, but my recent tournament play after a year of correspondence chess is much better than my rating suggests.
1400 is an average rating.
Actually, 1400 is not an average rating according to the United States Chess federation. That's an average "tournament" player rating. Not "tournament" in quotations. Against the world as a whole, 1400 is in the top 20% of planet Earth, that's considering even patzers who never play tournaments.
Originally posted by powershakerIf you include all the people who have ratings, 1400 is about average.
Actually, 1400 is not an average rating according to the United States Chess federation. That's an average "tournament" player rating. Not "tournament" in quotations. Against the world as a whole, 1400 is in the top 20% of planet Earth, that's considering even patzers who never play tournaments.
Including people who don't have a rating to try and claim you're in the top 20% is just nonsense.
Originally posted by powershakerthat's like someone training for six months to get into good running shape and saying that they are a better 5K runner than 80% of the world population since most don't run at all.
Actually, 1400 is not an average rating according to the United States Chess federation. That's an average "tournament" player rating. Not "tournament" in quotations. Against the world as a whole, 1400 is in the top 20% of planet Earth, that's considering even patzers who never play tournaments.
Originally posted by powershakeryou can live with it so it is fine - this is my opinion of your situation.
Okay, here's my story. I've always been a good social player, beating most every opponent I face, even when losing winning the majority of the games. I say social setting! Meaning not all of them were USCF rated, mostly non-rated. Anyway, this is my question: After around 50 games, my gameknot.com rating was in the mid-1400s. My redhotpawn.com rat ...[text shortened]... cial player. So, 1400 a good rating. I can live with it anyway. 🙂 1400? What do you think?
i had a 1400 rating at some stage(pre rhp) - and was content with my rating ... but wanted to know more about chess.
now i am equally content with my rating, just that the chess is a little different.
1500 is the median rating in Elo's original formula, although it is slightly above the 50th percentile in the USCF rating distribution chart for non-scholastic members. See http://www.uschess.org/ratings/ratedist.html.
An RHP rating of 1454 after 16 games is a provisional ELO rating of 1454. If you play OTB chess, your rating may be higher or lower. Any rating on RHP, or any comparable site, does not translate into any USCF rating. The playing conditions differ substantially. Ratings are good indications of strength within a given pool, not across pools.
Since December, when I became fairly active on this site, my RHP rating has ranged from a low of 1467 to a high of 1705. During the same period, my USCF rating has ranged from 1516 to 1586. My ratings at other sites have gone as high as slightly over 2300, while the 1467 is my lowest internet correspondence rating that is not provisional.
I also have a USCF correspondence rating of ~1800 (one or two games short of the 25 needed to end provisional status) and a IECC rating of ~1700, where I was fairly active until a year ago.
In short, if you want to know your RHP rating, keep playing here. If you want to know where you stand in the USCF scheme of things, enter some of their tournaments.
Not to be mean, but in tournament terms, 1400 is pretty fishy. A 1700 USCF player would dispatch 1400's almost every game. 1400's play in the lowest sections normally, sometimes maybe the Premier section, which is under the Open section. I am quickly realizing that even 1800 USCF, which is what I am, is quite fishy. I mean, when I walk over to games between 1400's, there are some glaring errors and alot of tactical mistakes. The same thing happens in games with 1700 and 1800's. It just dawned on me that really the only players who really understand chess to a reasonable degree is probably 2000 and above. Of course a 1400 player is pretty strong in a social setting. If you are just playing random friends or people at get together you will probably beat the crap out of all of them. But in a tournament, 1400 is low. That's just my opinion but I think that most serious tournament players would tend to agree.
Originally posted by powershakerEverything is a matter of reference. I took lessons from a GM and I was showing him a game I lost in the World Open to a 2300 rated Master.
Okay, here's my story. I've always been a good social player, beating most every opponent I face, even when losing winning the majority of the games. I say social setting! Meaning not all of them were USCF rated, mostly non-rated. Anyway, this is my question: After around 50 games, my gameknot.com rating was in the mid-1400s. My redhotpawn.com rat ...[text shortened]... cial player. So, 1400 a good rating. I can live with it anyway. 🙂 1400? What do you think?
His response? "The guy's a fish." I then asked him how he could call a 2300 USCF Master a fish?, and he told me, "because he is, Don."
Then he proceeded to analyze my game and showed me what a weak player this 2300 guy was... 😲
Originally posted by !~TONY~!I'm not sure if that's a fair generalization. I'd imagine that there are people who understand chess very well, but are poor visualisers, and are therefore poor OTB players. Take me for example. I wouldn't say I understand chess really well, but I have a good bit of chess experience for my age, and I'd call myself a serious player. However, my tournament rating is just below 1500. My understanding of the game is much better than that of people with a similar rating, I'm just not a particularly good visualiser (yet). I've only played a few tournaments, and I've just finished enough games so as to not be provisional, so I realise my rating will continue to go up. However, I don't think I'll get up to my level of understanding simply because I'm not a good visualiser. I think someone can understand chess well without being a good OTB player.
Not to be mean, but in tournament terms, 1400 is pretty fishy. A 1700 USCF player would dispatch 1400's almost every game. 1400's play in the lowest sections normally, sometimes maybe the Premier section, which is under the Open section. I am quickly realizing that even 1800 USCF, which is what I am, is quite fishy. I mean, when I walk over to games betwe ...[text shortened]... w. That's just my opinion but I think that most serious tournament players would tend to agree.
Ratings are relative. A sixth grade scholastic player with a rating of 900 will win trophies at most tournments. A 1500 adult player can coach such scholastic players, and seem like a master to the kids. But the 1500 player looks like an incompetent patzer to a master, who may look like a fish to a GM.
Players who reach the C class (~1500 USCF) usually understand the fundamentals of the game, but also have serious weaknesses. They may lack strong knowledge of openings, or have weak tactical skills, or play inconsistently for any number or reasons, or may be weak in positional knowledge, and so on. Many C players are old guys (or women) who were much stronger years ago, or who have terrible habits learned in their youth; others are middle-aged folks who have learned bad habits playing internet blitz.
For what it's worth ...
There seems to be general consensus that the ratings at RHP and USCF do not correlate, but I got to wondering about it, and decided to do a little simple analysis.
USCF rating in general do not represent a normal distribution. This is largely because USCF heavily signs up "scholastic" members - kids who might play a tournament or two in elementary school, then never again. What I wanted was something that is like the RHP Highest Rating, that is active people with enough games to be significant.
I downloaded the latest rating supplement (including on members with active memberships), and stripped out everyone with a provisional rating of less than 20 games. This left me with 14,726 members, and more likely something resembling a normal curve. Here's how it compared:
95th Percentile: RHP=1702, USCF=2095
90th Percentile: RHP=1593, USCF=1953
80th Percentile: RHP=1474, USCF=1767
50th Percentile (i.e. Median): RHP=1291, USCF=1309
Mean (average): RHP=unknown, USCF=1300
What does the mean? Other than that USCF is a flatter curve (i.e. higher standard deviation) I have no idea, but I thought it was interesting.