Three months ago on this site I was struggling to get my RHP rating up to the level of my USCF rating. Now that it has taken a quick jump to the where I'm struggling to get my USCF rating, I'm again seeking data on how the two compare.
If you have an OTB rating, is it
a. substantially higher than your RHP rating
b. slightly higher than your RHP rating
c. about the same as your RHP rating
d. slightly lower than your RHP rating
e. substantially lower than your RHP rating
For me, now, the answer is d. But it had always been b until about three weeks ago. Perhaps I've actually improved.
Originally posted by Wulebgre, but I've only played a few OTB tournaments.
Three months ago on this site I was struggling to get my RHP rating up to the level of my USCF rating. Now that it has taken a quick jump to the where I'm struggling to get my USCF rating, I'm again seeking data on how the two compare.
If you have an OTB rating, is it
a. substantially higher than your RHP rating
b. slightly higher than your RHP rating ...[text shortened]... wer is d. But it had always been b until about three weeks ago. Perhaps I've actually improved.
Originally posted by PalynkaI have no idea how that was in response to my post. But no, I don't think so. Why RHP's size increases, there's more players that are provisional 1200's. Since the average rating here, is just a bit more than that, it should remain relatively constant.
Shouldn't the ratings go up in average when the community increases? (i.e. more food in the bottom)
Originally posted by NordlysI probably play at approximately my rating here against Chessmaster. However, my OTB rating is another story. But I've only played 5 tournaments, and it's going up.
😉 I don't have an OTB rating - I haven't even played OTB. But judging from how I do against Chessmaster, I would be an "f", too.
Originally posted by ark13Actually I haven't played Chessmaster lately - I only played one or two games since I joined TFC. So I can't really compare the two ratings, but I was doing much better here than I "should" have, judging from the Chessmaster rating I had at that time. I have improved here, so I would expect that I would do better in Chessmaster, too, but I would still expect a big rating difference, at least if I play rather fast games (I used to play mostly 30 minute games). And I am completely hopeless at blitz.
I probably play at approximately my rating here against Chessmaster. However, my OTB rating is another story. But I've only played 5 tournaments, and it's going up.
Originally posted by ark13Imagine the worst player currently is rated X. For each player worse than him that comes along, shouldn't he start going up even if just a little? Isn't this true for X+1 and so on?
I have no idea how that was in response to my post. But no, I don't think so. Why RHP's size increases, there's more players that are provisional 1200's. Since the average rating here, is just a bit more than that, it should remain relatively constant.
I'm speculating, it's an honest question.
Originally posted by PalynkaThe player's rating would increase assuming that the new player's rating did not grow to exceed X. If it did he would in theory go down.
Imagine the worst player currently is rated X. For each player worse than him that comes along, shouldn't he start going up even if just a little? Isn't this true for X+1 and so on?
I'm speculating, it's an honest question.
Originally posted by PalynkaYes, it would. But for every player that joins that's better than that player, his rating would decrease slightly. So the rating average wouldn't change, the range would just expand. And it wouldn't change much.
Imagine the worst player currently is rated X. For each player worse than him that comes along, shouldn't he start going up even if just a little? Isn't this true for X+1 and so on?
I'm speculating, it's an honest question.