RHP Ratings versus OTB....I GOT An Answer

all I have heard is that uscf rating is considered generally slighty higher than corresponding Fide rating. so that 1800 uscf would be about 1750 fide.

and, surprisingly, Nakamura`s uscf rating is 2755. and top 20 us players are all over 2600 uscf...

Edit: oops, seems like you were talking about uscf and RHP ratings...well well...

Oh hell. Perhaps I did a poor job in expressing myself, plus we got pulled off topic in an arguement about relative strength of the player population.
Let's try this again. An 1800 USCF rating equates to the top 8% of all rated players. A 1650 rating on RHP equates to the top 6% category, so one could assume that a RHP rating would generally be a couple hundred points lower than their USCF rating. (If you want to research what a top 8% RHP rating would be, help yourself, it's probably around 1600)
If you want to get off into whether RHP player base is stronger than uscf/fide/bcf, whatever, you'd have to ask a bunch of people where they stand in percentile ranking on RHP versus the OTB organization they play in.
There! Can anyone argue with that?

Otb CFC 1852 14.6% in Canada out of 5550 players

Rhp hasn't settled yet 1755 currently top 6% on here out of the 3000 active player I think.

So what you are saying is that Rhp ratings are inflated?

Sigh.......no....not at all.
Although by your stats it appears that way, compared to what you do in the CFC.

Ya mean there's only 5500 active chess players in Canada?

Originally posted by General Putzer
Oh hell. Perhaps I did a poor job in expressing myself, plus we got pulled off topic in an arguement about relative strength of the player population.
Let's try this again. An 1800 USCF rating equates to the top 8% of all rated players. A 1650 rating on RHP equates to the top 6% category, so one could assume that a RHP rating would generally be ...[text shortened]... nking on RHP versus the OTB organization they play in.
There! Can anyone argue with that?

Sure, any idiot can argue with that. You are making several faulty assumptions.

1. You're using the percentages for only one point in both the systems. RHP or USCF could have larger standard deviation. If this were the case, the median ratings would be the same, but you couldn't compare people in the upper or lower percentiles.

2. USCF and RHP are VERY different playing environments, so we can't assume that each will have the same average quality of chess. For example, RHP probably attracts players with much lower ratings who are only playing casually, and would never compete OTB. If this were the case, RHP's percentiles would be downshifted because of the concentration of lower rated players.

This being said, I believe that RHP ratings are signifigantly higher than USCF ratings for the lower rated people. As rating goes up, so does the accuracy of the coorelation.

Originally posted by ark13
Sure, any idiot can argue with that. You are making several faulty assumptions.

1. You're using the percentages for only one point in both the systems. RHP or USCF could have larger standard deviation. If this were the case, the median ratings would be the same, but you couldn't compare people in the upper or lower percentiles.

2. USCF and RHP are VER ...[text shortened]... ngs for the lower rated people. As rating goes up, so does the accuracy of the coorelation.

Omigod ark you completely missed the point.........I'm giving up on this thread.
Please reread my last response and THIMK, for goddsakes. Your reply had nothing to do with mine.

God. Like dealing with 6 year olds.

Originally posted by General Putzer
There! Can anyone argue with that?

I'll try to get it through one more time, with a hypersimplified example:

say you have two pools of players, pools A and B. now, pool A consists of all the players on region Ra. pool B on the other hand, consists of x-percentile of best players on region Rb, because they have a policy of killing all weak players. both regions have exactly the same kind of social surroundings, and prior to the killing both pools are gaussian.

now, both resulting pools just happen to consist of 5 players, whose 'ratings' are:

A = { a1, a2, a3, a4, a5 }
B = { b1, b2, b3, b4, b5 }

the ratings are ordered a1 less than a2 less than a3 etc.

now, what you are trying to do, is take say, top 20-percentile from both groups, which conveniently happens to be a5 and b5. now, why don't they have the same rating? in fact, if on Rb they killed 80-percentile of weakest players, the whole B-pool would correspond to a5.

because the two sets had different statistical distributions!

Originally posted by General Putzer
Sigh.......no....not at all.
Although by your stats it appears that way, compared to what you do in the CFC.

Ya mean there's only 5500 active chess players in Canada?

Yes, Chess isn't as huge in Canada yet.

www.chess.ca

is the site, left hand side ratings, bottom of the rating page, all canadain in ranking order.

Same problem, worm, nothing to do with my last reply.

I'm done here, no more, I can't stand it anymore.

Originally posted by ark13
Sure, any idiot can argue with that. You are making several faulty assumptions.

1. You're using the percentages for only one point in both the systems. RHP or USCF could have larger standard deviation. If this were the case, the median ratings would be the same, but you couldn't compare people in the upper or lower percentiles.

2. USCF and RHP are VER ...[text shortened]... ngs for the lower rated people. As rating goes up, so does the accuracy of the coorelation.

I think point 2 is very significant in regards to this thread.

Good one ark.

Originally posted by General Putzer
Same problem, worm, nothing to do with my last reply.

I'm done here, no more, I can't stand it anymore.

Oh sorry, our posts didn't revolve around your last one? What were we thinking? Discussing what you presented at the start of the thread? What a stupid idea.

Indeed it was ark

While amusing, there is no basis for this thread. There is simply no correlation between RHP ratings and OTB ELO ratings. There are too many variables at play, not the least of which is the little point about database use that can easily raise a player's strength by as much as 100-300 points, depending on where they are to begin with. Conversley, if you don't use databases, then your rating could (and probably would) be lower in CC than OTB. It isn't difficult to grasp, but apparently it isn't easy to accept for some people.

Originally posted by General Putzer
Indeed it was ark

I see you lack either the ability to detect sarcasm, or a limit to your ego. Perhaps both...

Originally posted by General Putzer
People are always asking how they compare and the standard answer is they don't, buuuuuuuuut, I believe I have a simple solution.
USCF ratings show the percentile breakdown of the different rating ranges, for instance, 2200+ is the top 1% of all players, 1800+ the top 8%, and a rating of 1000 is right about at the 50 percentile rank.
Sooo ...[text shortened]... be at about the same on RHP. That may give you an idea of the rating differance in point value.

I have been at RHP for quite a while now and I find my OTB rating is always 150 to 200 rating points higher than my RHP rating. I dont know if that means I am a better OTB player or if the field here at RHP is stronger. I have found this to be so constant that after thousands of games here I have never defeated one single player here that holds my OTB rating.