OTB 2060
RHP 1980 (but jumps all over the place due to game load)
difference of 80
I personally think my rating here should be around 1950-2000 if i was more consistent, and my game load was lower...
Its hard to judge blitz ratings, some days your on, others your not...mine at ICC jumps from 1800 to 2200...
My rating is considerably higher on RHP than in OTB chess, about 350-400 points. I attribute that to the mistakes I make under time pressure OTB, which are cut down drastically on RHP because there really is no time pressure in CC. I know that on RHP I am able to work out some complicated lines that I otherwise cannot do OTB, simply because I have lots of time to do so here.
When I first joined RHP, I was told there was very little correlation between this rating system and other national and international Elo rating systems. However, for what it's worth, my RHP and FIDE ratings have been within 25 points or so of each other for quite a long time now. Don't know if that means anything or just coincidence.
I think that the differences between the two ratings can be misleading, especially for people who aren't subscribers. For example, I had a big jump in USCF points and went from 1200 to about 1500 in 5 months. However, since I can only play 6 games on here, it took a long time for my RHP rating to catch up. Right now, since my USCF rating has stagnated, the gap has closed, but before it was 300 or more points.
I just started playing in a chess club and some of the guys rated less than 1800 are slaughtering me in ways that 1800 players on RHP never do.
I think it comes down to experience. We play 15min blitz games at this club, and I'm terrible at blitz because it's not something I have much experience with. If you'd have plenty of experience in all areas of chess, then I suspect your level of play would be more consistent and your ratings would reflect this.
And the funny thing about ratings is that even if calculations among different systems are identical, they still only tell you how you rate against the opponents you have played. Ratings are RELATIVE, not ABSOLUTE. The larger the sample, the more consistent it's likely to be, but I think it's entirely possible for two amateurs living in different parts of the world to have simular ratings but have very different chess abilities.
For example, if you only play people rated 1600-1700 at the most because of limitations of where you live or whatever, you're going to have to play a helluva lot of games to get a 2300 rating.
One more thing. Because RHP is such a large open and fluid community, I think the ratings here really are meaningful how you compare against the rest of the world in chess.
The 1576 has just be translated from 122, no matches have been counted yet. The ECF gives 2 formulae at:
http://grading.bcfservices.org.uk/help.php#elo
The other formula gives FIDE: 1860.
My OTB rating is around 2100 - a little less on FIDE, a little more on my national federation. Here and in FICS, it usually floats between 1700 and 1800, though it's been closed to the latter lately.
I have a lot of trouble with focus and discipline when it comes to online chess. It seems I'm unable to get really competitive when my opponent isn't sitting right in front of me
maybe now someone should make some statistics, some average, min and max, maybe it will help drawing some conclusion about the 600+ rating difference in OTBvs RHP
There is a simple reason for why internet ratings are often badly inflated - one gets to choose who one's opponents are. I won't go into the mechanics of the statistical system and its flaws, but suffice it to say that the elo system isn't perfect, and in particular players who only play higher or same-rated people will tend toward a higher rating, since a lower-rated person has a higher chance to win than the elo system assumes he has (the correlation between skill and chance to win is non-linear, and elo assumes it is linear). In any case, this is why one regularly sees players with 3000+ ratings on ICC and other systems, where one doesn't see this OTB, since OTB one is often in tournaments playing significantly lower-rated players. (e.g. Garry Kasparov can not simply play the top 10 rated players all the time, he sometimes ends up against 2200 rated players, who sometimes win or draw, and pull his rating down...
Originally posted by Kibbick There is a simple reason for why internet ratings are often badly inflated...
they're not inflated, they're just different. every rating pool has a metric of its own, depending on the initial values, formulas, population and point in time, and it's never even linear. the rulers are just fundamentally incomparable.
Originally posted by Northern Lad When I first joined RHP, I was told there was very little correlation between this rating system and other national and international Elo rating systems. However, for what it's worth, my RHP and FIDE ratings have been within 25 points or so of each other for quite a long time now. Don't know if that means anything or just coincidence.
i think it has more to do with the quality of players you play with. At the level you play at Northern, you already know most of the players you play with, you know their legitimacy and OTB is the same, you know their legitimacy. Your playing with players, who very likely can beat most PC engines or at least pull a draw out rather often. So without engines creating rating inflation and deflation at your level, I think perhaps your rating may be closer to truth, as you play with honest, strong opponents.
I'll be playing in your group here in a few months just to let you know 🙂
Rating: RHP vs OTB
26 Mar '08 19:471 edit
Back to Top