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

Originally posted by RahimK
2/2 anyone else?

Hey Wulebgr. Whats the offical USCF site?

Do they have a rating comparsion for USCF to Fide using USCF memeber ratings who have played in Fide touranments and comparing their ratings?

Similar to:

http://www.chess.ca/CFCvsFIDE.htm

USCF: 1152

RHP: 1569


LOL!

SERIOUS though.

But, that 1152 was from 12 years ago, and I hadn't taken the Lev Alburt course either.

Originally posted by RahimK
K lets do this. How many people player OTB actively and Rhp?

Actively meaning they play in OTB rated tournments say 1's every 3 months and have played in an OTB tournament at least once this year and have a established rating. Write your rating on here. I'm pretty sure that they are within 200 points neglecting the obvious mass timeout issues and people p ...[text shortened]... one, Jan and Feb every thursday. So it's very recent. That's what I consider Active in OTB.

I'd be glad to submit my rating pair to this, but I don't think it'll be useful as my OTB rating hasn't come anywhere near to stabilizing. I'm generally around 1875 here. OTB, I'm 1600 USCF, but I've been gaining nearly 100 points in each of my recent OTB tournaments. To give you an idea, I performed at 1900 in my last tournament. I don't think I'll end up that high, but 1800 seems to be a reasonable estimate.

Originally posted by powershaker
USCF: 1152

RHP: 1569


LOL!

SERIOUS though.

But, that 1152 was from 12 years ago, and I hadn't taken the Lev Alburt course either.

WARNING!

WARNING!

NOT ACTIVE OTB PLAYER

2/2 still.

Originally posted by ark13
I'd be glad to submit my rating pair to this, but I don't think it'll be useful as my OTB rating hasn't come anywhere near to stabilizing. I'm generally around 1875 here. OTB, I'm 1600 USCF, but I've been gaining nearly 100 points in each of my recent OTB tournaments. To give you an idea, I performed at 1900 in my last tournament. I don't think I'll end up that high, but 1800 seems to be a reasonable estimate.

Last I heard from you, you said you were not very active in OTB rated tournaments?

When was your last tournament and the 2 before that and how many games do you usually have in a touranment?

Originally posted by RahimK
Like I said before, anyone getting over 1600 like this without using db's and books has my respect. The higher you get, the more respect I have for that person.

To me that means that the person true rating is above his Rhp rating for him to get such a rating against potential db users.

Of course you could just beat up on lower rated player to get that ...[text shortened]... ting since it is Rhp and you can pick your opponent etc...

In that case, I'm disappointed.

I dont currently use databses. Im clueless in most openings. I like to spend my time studing tactcs, and endgames. Still i can get to 1700+

Originally posted by RahimK
Last I heard from you, you said you were not very active in OTB rated tournaments?

When was your last tournament and the 2 before that and how many games do you usually have in a touranment?

I'm not particularly active, I usually play only about 3 or 4 per year. My last tournament was just a week and a half ago, which consisted of 4 games. The two before that, I left early from and only got in two games. They were both in the fall. Before that, I played a four gamer in the late summer.

Originally posted by RahimK
Hey Wulebgr. Whats the offical USCF site?

www.uschess.org

individual player ratings are at www.uschess.org/msa/

I'm not certain if they have those comparisons on their website. They have some data along those lines in U.S. Chess Federation's Official Rules of Chess, 5th edition.

Originally posted by ark13
[b]
2. USCF and RHP are VERY different playing environments, so we can't assume that each will have the same average quality of chess.[b]

I have to agree with the first part of arc13's 2nd point. The "different environment" is a big difference of being able to look up opening moves and take whatever time you need to respond.

Practice has shown that postal players played an average of 200 points above their OTB rating for these very same reasons. HOWEVER, some players are here just to play for the fun of it and don't take the game seriously enough to look up the opening variations. That explains why not all players are rated 200 points above their OTB strength.

Originally posted by arrakis
I have to agree with arc13's 2nd point. The "different environment" is a big difference of being able to look up opening moves and take whatever time you need to respond.

Practice has shown that postal players played an average of 200 points above their OTB rating for these very same reasons. HOWEVER, some players are here just to play for the fun of it a ...[text shortened]... variations. That explains why not all players are rated 200 points above their OTB strength.

But the only reason coorespondence players should be rated higher is because of a differering rating system. Although the quality of play is probably higher because they have more time and databases, there can't be any games between coorespondence players and OTB players to make this higher quality of play noticable in the rating system. Similarly, if RHP has a different distribution of ratings, it's only because of a different way in which we calculate ratings here. Rating has nothing to do with independent quality of play, and everything to do with your quality of play compared to everyone else. And it's impossible to have one player play a RHP game against someone who's playing OTB, or coorespondence.

That's why the percentages would be useful for finding a rating coorelation if it weren't for the intangible factor that is that each kind of play attracts different types of players.

Originally posted by ark13
I'm not particularly active, I usually play only about 3 or 4 per year. My last tournament was just a week and a half ago, which consisted of 4 games. The two before that, I left early from and only got in two games. They were both in the fall. Before that, I played a four gamer in the late summer.

Ya, In my opinion I don't really consider that active. I think if you played more OTB games then your OTB rating would be closer to your Rhp rated and from your performance rating which you posted it will be.

So just Wul. and Me so far. Still 2/2.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
www.uschess.org

individual player ratings are at www.uschess.org/msa/

I'm not certain if they have those comparisons on their website. They have some data along those lines in U.S. Chess Federation's Official Rules of Chess, 5th edition.

O that's the one I was looking at. Not very user friendly. There's stuff all over the place.

Ya I look throught that but couldn't find any meaningful comparision. O wells.

Originally posted by powershaker
Here Here! To the database assertion! But, what if a player uses nothing, and has a 1569 and above 1600 sometimes on RHP? What if he just plays casual chess against these players? No books... nothing? What would that say of his rating? hehe

Well, you just basically described me. I have started to use databases in my last 2 games, and plan to continue, to see how much of a difference it really makes for me.

Originally posted by BLReid
Well, you just basically described me. I have started to use databases in my last 2 games, and plan to continue, to see how much of a difference it really makes for me.

I didn't use db during my first 50 games, after I started using them, there was no visible difference during next 40. in rating that is, actual games look better of course.

only when I started doing blunder check around 20 completed games ago, there's was a visible difference. more importantly, there's only one game I've lost since (a queen drop). all other lost games were down a piece before starting blunder checking. so, if databases had any effect, it was completely masked by other things. (as was everything else I've learned in last 4-5 months, I didn't know anything back then.) thinking about all this, I've come to the conclusion that databases don't do much anything at 1500-level. just as futile as memorizing lines. slight opening advantages just are not enough to win yet.

although in the longer run, they'll probably instill correct opening patterns, instead of bad habits you might get developing your own openings.

Originally posted by wormwood
I didn't use db during my first 50 games, after I started using them, there was no visible difference during next 40. in rating that is, actual games look better of course.

only when I started doing blunder check around 20 completed games ago, there's was a visible difference. more importantly, there's only one game I've lost since (a queen drop). all ot ect opening patterns, instead of bad habits you might get developing your own openings.

It depends on your opponent also. Some of them play really weird moves right off the bat and you can't find it in a db or book and you can't really do much about it except develop.

But say you got 18 moves deep into the marshall attack and your opponent misplays it makes a bad move which you can't find in db's you gotta know how to punish him for it.

That's another thing. If someone makes a bad move non db move etc... you gotta punish him for it. The higher rated you are, the easier you can do this.

So I don't think db make a difference at a lower level, but the higher you get the more difference it makes.

Game 1682956

I thought about it and found some lovely moves are he deviated from the book around move 18ish?

What's funny is that I went into a very similar varaition in an OTB game played a week before against a 1900 player who crushed me eventually. I had him the whole game and he was down to 4 minutes, made the washroom dash and came back and I blunders and he crushed me. The master told me that they liked my play and wish they had my position against some other master. Made me proud even though I lost.

Hey!! What happen to the notebook? I can't find the notebook in any of my old games and I had some notes in them 🙁!!

Unless you understand the position all the books and databases will do is allow you to play longer before you blunder.