Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 17 Mar '09 09:00
    Hi,
    Does any body have an idea how closely the ratings on this sute match standard elo ratings?
  2. 17 Mar '09 10:09
    Originally posted by Djb123
    Hi,
    Does any body have an idea how closely the ratings on this sute match standard elo ratings?
    The two rating systems should be considered to be two totally different system. They cannot be compared to eachother in any way. Every attempt to do so is in vain.

    CC is one thing, OTB another.
  3. 17 Mar '09 11:35
    Not so. The standard formula is:

    RHP + 500 = Elo

    Clean and simple and in most cases true if you squint real hard and round off to the nearest thounsand.
  4. 17 Mar '09 11:38
    Originally posted by MontyMoose
    Not so. The standard formula is:

    RHP + 500 = Elo

    Clean and simple and in most cases true if you squint real hard and round off to the nearest thounsand.
    You mean that I have almost 2500 ELO? No way...

    CC is one thing, OTB is another. Any clear-cut formulae are false.
  5. 17 Mar '09 11:50
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    You mean that I have almost 2500 ELO? No way...

    CC is one thing, OTB is another. Any clear-cut formulae are false.
    Moosey was clearly joking...

    Anyway, I think the main reason why it's so hard to compare RHP and OTB ratings is the wide range of time used per move on RHP. Even with people of equal skill, one person might have a huge game load and only take seconds on any one move, while another person might only have a few games going and take hours on each move. And even if game load isn't a factor, some people will simply take less time per move than others either because they place less importance on their RHP games or they only have limited time for their games due to other day-to-day responsibilities.
  6. 17 Mar '09 13:20
    Originally posted by Mad Rook
    Moosey was clearly joking...
    And I fell for it... Damn...
  7. Standard member peacedog
    Highlander
    17 Mar '09 15:50
    Originally posted by Mad Rook
    Moosey was clearly joking...

    Anyway, I think the main reason why it's so hard to compare RHP and OTB ratings is the wide range of time used per move on RHP. Even with people of equal skill, one person might have a huge game load and only take seconds on any one move, while another person might only have a few games going and take hours on each move. ...[text shortened]... games or they only have limited time for their games due to other day-to-day responsibilities.
    The funny thing is, even though this is supposed to be a correspondence chess site, I cant help but blitz my moves out. I take far more time OTB than I do here. I’m sure a lot of you guys are the same. Especially those paying members with millions of games on the go at once.
  8. Standard member Wulebgr
    Angler
    17 Mar '09 16:22 / 2 edits
    Here's the formula, or as near as I can express within the textual limitations of this forum:

    15 [(RHP x FP) / (AGE + IQ) /2] = ELO

    So, in my case, my current RHP rating is 1831; I've posted six times in the chess forum this month. Im 48 and have an IQ of 139.

    15 [(1831 x 6) / (48 + 139) / 2] = 1762

    My peak USCF rating is 1754, so there is a small error margin, but the formula gives a good estimate.
  9. 17 Mar '09 16:44
    Originally posted by Mad Rook
    Moosey was clearly joking...

    Anyway, I think the main reason why it's so hard to compare RHP and OTB ratings is the wide range of time used per move on RHP. Even with people of equal skill, one person might have a huge game load and only take seconds on any one move, while another person might only have a few games going and take hours on each move. ...[text shortened]... games or they only have limited time for their games due to other day-to-day responsibilities.
    I think the recent comments are right on. You can lower your correspondance rating from what it could be by making moves too quickly (which also relates to loading up with a lot of games). For myself, if I made 30 sec moves on average, I bet I'd drop 200 points. (I'd estimate I now average 3-5 min on moves that matter.)

    But, going the other way, I think you can reach a level (for me personally, I think I'm there) where it doesn't matter much if you spend ~more~ time. Less about blunders and more about failing to recognize a strategy that a more advance player employs early enough. For this, I think whether you spend 3 minutes contemplating the move or 10 min, if you don't see it you just don't see it.

    I think it is really a matter of personal preference. I am happier carrying fewer games but (trying) to make them of a relatively higher quality. But, I can also see the fun in playing with a more blitz-like mentality.

    Bottom line, because there is such variety in the way peeople choose to play at the site, I think it is difficult to relate the RHP ratings values to other rating systems.
  10. 17 Mar '09 20:29
    Originally posted by Wulebgr

    15 [(RHP x FP) / (AGE + IQ) /2] = ELO

    ...I've posted six times in the chess forum this month.
    If posting in the forums is part of the formula, then GB will be rated about 5000!
  11. 18 Mar '09 01:39
    What is FP?
  12. 18 Mar '09 01:44
    Originally posted by amolv06
    What is FP?
    Frequency of posting.
  13. 18 Mar '09 02:17
    Originally posted by peacedog
    The funny thing is, even though this is supposed to be a correspondence chess site, I cant help but blitz my moves out. I take far more time OTB than I do here. I’m sure a lot of you guys are the same. Especially those paying members with millions of games on the go at once.
    I hear ya!
  14. Standard member Wulebgr
    Angler
    18 Mar '09 04:25
    Originally posted by MontyMoose
    If posting in the forums is part of the formula, then GB will be rated about 5000!
    There's a point there somewhere.
  15. 18 Mar '09 15:49
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    The two rating systems should be considered to be two totally different system. They cannot be compared to eachother in any way. Every attempt to do so is in vain.

    CC is one thing, OTB another.
    This is correct. I win much more here than OTB. I have the advantage here of not getting into as much trouble during the opening with openings I don't know so well. OTB I'm pretty good in the French and KID, not so much in other openings. I just don't know all the theory.

    After the opening I play about the same, but that's a big help. Here there are some positions I can set up on a side board and work on for awhile before moving which I also can't do OTB, but those situations don't happen that often for me.

    I am as prone to blunders here as OTB I think. :-(