Originally posted by RichyHIt is not fully comparable, real time chess vs. correspondence chess. For those (often the lower and midrange ranked players) who play 'on the screen' without books and databases, it should be fairly comparable. For those who play according to the correspondence rules, the games produced here should on average be of better quality than their OTB games. But so are the games of their opponents (on average). So, I guess, it is not too far off, despite the first answer: not comparable.
Does anyone know how close the RHP rating is to the ELO /fide ratings used in real life ?
Are the same, or way off the mark ?
Thanks.
Well, for me it's not comparable at all, Internet Chess seems a lot easier then OTB ratings, at least where I am from, although that may have something to do with the fact the highest rated player in my entire province is only 2100 rated, and there are only about 30 or so tournament players here, so we kinda have an elite league of our own going on, and with so few players and such low ratings, it seems like all 30 of us will be severely underated across the globe for time to come... Region, clubs, opponents, tournaments, games played, and general luck, also play a huge part in OTB ratings.
For example, in gamknot, I'm rated 1755, FICS, real-time standard chess, I'm rated 1704, but in OTB CFC, I'm 1484. Although I only just started to get back into chess OTB after 10 years and have only played 2 tournies, and it seems, 10 years ago, I hate a shiatty rating, and so far, I've won every game with those rated under 1600, but haven't won a game yet against someone over 1600 (usually a drawish game until I blunder late), so I can only conclude that internet chess is easier then OTB chess in my region by about 100-200 pts.
I somehow try to resist using the analyze board feature in correspondance chess, as I beleive that feature kills me ability to calculate OTB, but somehow, I cannot resist, seeing that my opponent, he/she too, can use the analyze board feature, I feel it gives them an unfair advantage and I must use it too to make the game fair and legit... Yes, correspondance is unrealisitic in the sense you can look up openings, think a day for a move, and use analyze board features, but then again, so can your opponent, so it must balance out in some way. Although some players seem to be better at chess researching then others, for example, Topalov often beats Kasparov in correspondance like set-ups, and guys like Adams, can't seem to chess research at all (ie: his games against Hydra porved that, I doubt he even studied that engine at all before his matches).
The analyze board simply replaces a real one. In the old days, most of the correspondence players would set up a board with the position and analyze. And woe to those who didn't because they wouldn't stand a chance. I use the analyze board infrequently and set up a position on a real board very infrequently, just because of laziness.