Following up on a thread by Bedlam, with the only modification being OTB rating- I think this is a better indicator than RHP ratings for a couple of reasons: Some people use opening books/DB's, while others don't, making the average strength a little unclear- rapidly improving/declining players who are not subscribers will be way over or under rated since they would only complete a few games a month.
Round off your rating to the nearest 100- indicate federation
1600 (USCF)
It is 2005 in fide rating. Although there is a trend with ECF grades that they are slowly going downwards while fide ratings are slowly going upwards.
The new conversion to compensate for this is ECF rating X 5 + 1250.
This is evident by the fact that 20 years ago, 2600+ was a super high fide strength, generally only achieved by the world elite. Now there are over a hundred players rated over 2600, and over 20 who have broken the 2700 mark as well. It means that 2800 is now the benchmark by which the truely elite are measured, but with 4 players having broken this barrier how long will it be before many more of the worlds top players pass 2800 and 2900 becomes the elite status?
Conversely, in England, 20 years ago most grand masters were about 250+ ECF rated, whereas now the grands tend to be more between 230 and 240 with very few of them ever breaking over the 250 barrier.
I believe it happens because, if an ECF player falls inactive they lose their rating completely and so when they restart will cripple the ratings of any opponent they beat before getting back their old grade.
In the fide system, an inactive player keeps their rating and can reuse it when they return to the game - hence not damaging the other players grades and keeping all the points in circulation.
- Joined
- 20 May 04
- Moves
- 247383
... if an ECF player falls inactive they lose their rating completely and so when they restart will cripple the ratings of any opponent they beat before getting back their old grade.How long somebody had to be inactive in order to lose rating completly?
That seems really unjust.
I think that now they have got an online system, they can trace old ratings up to 10 or 15 years back.
Traditionally, though, if you are inactive for a year you lose your rating. Hence the reason the ratings slip down - I recently played a player who used to be about 2200 (190ECF - about what David Tebb is rated) and had been inactive for years so had lost his rating and had come back around 2100 (170 ECF)- he beat me and so I ended up losing more points then I would have had he been at his proper strength.
Although, it does have a knock on effect that I am quite a good 150 player as it is so damn hard to get my rating up even though my game is improving.
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexI suspect that these issues iron themselves out over a season.
I think that now they have got an online system, they can trace old ratings up to 10 or 15 years back.
Traditionally, though, if you are inactive for a year you lose your rating. Hence the reason the ratings slip down - I recently played a player who used to be about 2200 (190ECF - about what David Tebb is rated) and had been inactive for years ...[text shortened]... te a good 150 player as it is so damn hard to get my rating up even though my game is improving.
I think it is better to be underrated than overrated as your opponent may not anticipate the standard of your play.
I think your grade will improve when it is ready to improve, and the fact that you feel your game is improving is probably an accurate reflection that you are becoming a better chess player. Often, ratings will plateau for a year or so before rising. I supose it is a period of consolidation.
Personally, regardless of my opponent's grade, I am happy if I play well (winning helps though!).
Recently, I played in a tournament where I drew my games against the eventual winner and also against the lowest rated player in the section. The games were very different yet both very interesting and both will require a lot of work from myself.
I have only been to an otb club three times this month and never before, as yet i dont have an otb rating but I have played 3 rated games so far beating an ecf 38 rated player and drawing 1-1 against a 68 ecf rated player, I also beat in an unrated game a player with a rating of 96 ecf so I dont know what my rating will be.
Her I peak at 1400 and rapidly drop back down to 1320 ish again, I cant seem to stay at 1400 at all.
Originally posted by tapestryabout playing well, this is a bit relative. I(2000) have noticed that I did NOT win against weaker opponents(1800) when playing allmost perfect(but simple) games...where trades came fast, natural, Rooks+pawns drawn ending and this was it...
I suspect that these issues iron themselves out over a season.
I think it is better to be underrated than overrated as your opponent may not anticipate the standard of your play.
I think your grade will improve when it is ready to improve, and the fact that you feel your game is improving is probably an accurate reflection that you are becoming a better ...[text shortened]... were very different yet both very interesting and both will require a lot of work from myself.
On the other side, I have won much more complicated games against higher rated player(2100), very tactical, in some sequences every move was a mistake on both sides...you know, that kind of messy game...
I think it is not all about playing well the game...you should be able also to create the mess and winning chances, to imbalance a game...especially against lower players...
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexMaybe the opposite happens in the USCF because of rating floors- people gain more than they should and lose less than they should- this inflates the whole system. For example, take the USCF top 100 lists. I just randomly selected 9 years old- number 100 is 1222, number 50 1382, number 1 2043. Now if we see exactly 5 years ago, number 100 is 1158, number 50 is 1252, number 1 is 1969. A similar pattern occurs in all these age group- the ratings slowly rise, around 20-50 points a year. 3 years ago, for 9 year olds, the ratings were inbetween- number 100 was 1180, number 50 is 1287, number 1 was 1985. There is a definite pattern here.
I think that now they have got an online system, they can trace old ratings up to 10 or 15 years back.
Traditionally, though, if you are inactive for a year you lose your rating. Hence the reason the ratings slip down - I recently played a player who used to be about 2200 (190ECF - about what David Tebb is rated) and had been inactive for years ...[text shortened]... te a good 150 player as it is so damn hard to get my rating up even though my game is improving.
Edit: whoops, quoted wrong post, meant the one talking about FIDE rating inflation and ECF rating deflation