(Pardon me if this is a dumb or old question, but I'm new here....)
How translatable are ratings on RHP? For those of you who play USCF or FIDE rated OTB,
are your ratings here similar?
I played USCF OTB as a teenager in the 1970s, and I had a rating that ranged between 1080 and 1230.. I haven't played serious chess since. Here my rating is above 1450 (though it's provisional - I know that it might change with time). Are the ratings here a little inflated because the population of competition isn't as good as in USCF, or have I gotten better? Alternatively, maybe I'm just better at correspondence chess...
Notdorf
Originally posted by NotdorfNo question is dumb.
(Pardon me if this is a dumb or old question, but I'm new here....)
How translatable are ratings on RHP? For those of you who play USCF or FIDE rated OTB,
are your ratings here similar?
I played USCF OTB as a teenager in the 1970s, and I had a rating that ranged between 1080 and 1230.. I haven't played serious chess since. Here my rating is above gotten better? Alternatively, maybe I'm just better at correspondence chess...
Notdorf
Well, to answer your question not easy. We need to do some math.
If for example your rhp rating is X, your USCF rating must be a thousand times of tangent of the square root of X+300 times with 100.
So; square root of 1900 is 45.59. 45.59 times 100 is 4559.
Tangent of 4559 is aproximately 1.664.
Finally 1.644 times 1000 = 1664.
1600 RHP rating would exactly be 1664 USCF rating.
It's kind of complicated the math derives from Dr. Velo's approach. RHP uses Velo rating.
Does that make sense?
Originally posted by NotdorfCorrespondence and OTB are different forms of chess. Correspondence tends to favor the patient researcher. In corr, I can analyze 20 moves deep if I want, and save the variations I find in ChessBase, thus giving perfect recall of all of them. I can follow opening book lines 20+ moves deep, using several sources for cross-checking. Once I reach the endgame, I can consult any books that contain similar [or even exactly the same] endgames.
(Pardon me if this is a dumb or old question, but I'm new here....)
How translatable are ratings on RHP? For those of you who play USCF or FIDE rated OTB,
are your ratings here similar?
I played USCF OTB as a teenager in the 1970s, and I had a rating that ranged between 1080 and 1230.. I haven't played serious chess since. Here my rating is above ...[text shortened]... gotten better? Alternatively, maybe I'm just better at correspondence chess...
Notdorf
In correspondence, there is no clock ticking away and no sudden death. If I am not comfortable with a position, or tired of looking at it for the time being, I can put it aside and come back to it tomorrow. If I am a more nervous type of person, I may do much better in CC because there are no time scrambles. I can make all my moves in the comfort of my own home, with my favorite music playing, favorite drink in hand, etc. etc.
I have seen players who were 1800 OTB and 2500 correspondence ... and this was before computers were good enough to be 2500 corr. So, to answer your question, I do not think there is a strong link between OTB rating and CC rating.
Originally posted by SwissGambitWhile that is true, its not totally pertinent because the USCF maintains a separate CC rating in addition to both a quick and standard OTB rating for it's members.
Correspondence and OTB are different forms of chess. Correspondence tends to favor the patient researcher. In corr, I can analyze 20 moves deep if I want, and save the variations I find in ChessBase, thus giving perfect recall of all of them. I can follow opening book lines 20+ moves deep, using several sources for cross-checking. Once I reach the endgam ...[text shortened]... to answer your question, I do not think there is a strong link between OTB rating and CC rating.
Originally posted by NotdorfHi there Notdorf,
I am sorry, I was just teasing last night.
There's not much correlation but I think you can pretty much safely assume that your USCF rating would be in the range of plus or minus 500 points of your RHP rating. I know that does not help.
It all depends who you play with, the group you play in, strength of people, time controls and the way the ratings are calculated.
I have 1700ish or higher rating in some sites, 1500ish or lower in some sites depending on time controls and whom I played with.
Sorry, I am not an expert but this is as much as I know.
Send over a challenge and I will guess what your rating might be after the game. 🙂
Regards,
Kenan
OK, well this has probably also been discussed ad nauseum before, but why not calibrate ratings against a standard chess engine? Let USCF or some other body take some stable chess engines and define them with particular rankings. Then, any other body who wishes to be standardized (and I admit, that's an assumption on my part) can play some small fraction of games against that engine, making sure that the engine achieves a rating near the standard and adjusting accordingly.....
Yeah, I know that chess ratings vary with environment, timing, etc., but...
Originally posted by zebanoOP was clearly talking about USCF OTB play. Read the last paragraph in the opening post.
While that is true, its not totally pertinent because the USCF maintains a separate CC rating in addition to both a quick and standard OTB rating for it's members.
Thanks for playing.
kenan said, "There's not much correlation but I think you can pretty much safely assume that your USCF rating would be in the range of plus or minus 500 points of your RHP rating."
One thing I would point out is that an established OTB rating is probably a better predictor of one's RHP rating than the reverse. I tend to agree with you that for lower ratings, the correlation is not very strong, e.g. for an OTB 1200, RHP 1600 is conceivable. However, I think that the correlation becomes stronger as rating increases. For eample, for an OTB 2000, I would expect the range to be more like +/- 300
SwissGambit said, "I have seen players who were 1800 OTB and 2500 correspondence ... and this was before computers were good enough to be 2500 corr."
The only way I can see this being possible would be if the person had prematurely withdrawn from competitive OTB chess and had continued to develop their ability. If their OTB rating does not truly reflect their OTB skill, then I suppose your statement is not beyond the realm of possibility. I checked the website of the ICCF. Any player who has achieved an ICCF rating of 2500 would, at a minimum, have a title of SIM and might possibly be GM. If any of the strong OTB/RHP players who post occasionally here (e.g. NorthernLad, Korch, woodworm, Gatecrasher, Stephane, Mephisto2, EnglishTal, etc.) were to achieve the ICCF tile of IM, much less SIM or GM, it would most definitely be a significant achievement. So, when I hear a story about an OTB 1800 achieving a correspondence rating of 2500, let's just say I am sceptical.
Originally posted by AlboMalapropFoozerhttp://www.iccf-webchess.com/PlayerDetails.aspx?id=510571
So, when I hear a story about an OTB 1800 achieving a correspondence rating of 2500, let's just say I am sceptical.
http://main.uschess.org/assets/msa_joomla/MbrDtlMain.php?10284180
Of the RHP names you listed, I believe at least one of them does not even have an OTB rating. Without that, you can't really claim they're strong OTB players. [Some may not even play OTB at all!]
SwissGambit :
1. You did indeed demonstrate that a player exists whose present OTB rating is between 1800 and 1900 and is a Correspondence SM. I retract my statement questioning such a person's existence.
2. The USCF rating record indicates that this individual hasn't played any OTB since 2000 and that in the early 1990s, was rated between 2000 and 2100. The rating record doesn't go farther back than 1991, but it is certainly likely that he was rated even higher in the 1980s. Let me know if you find evidence to the contrary.
3. In my previous post, I only allowed for the possibility of a player who prematurely retired from OTB before reaching his peak ability. I neglected to allow for another possibility i.e. where a formerly strong player's OTB performance declines due to age, but his correspondence performance remains strong.