USCF rating to ECF grade

Fat Lady

Only Chess

22 Jan '09 10:36

no1marauder
Naturally Right
Somewhere Else
Joined
22 Jun '04
Moves
42677
23 Jan '09 15:341 edit
Originally posted by heinzkat
There is this formula 1250 + 5 * ECF-rating = FIDE-rating; not sure of its source. It pops up everywhere. A Google brings up this page:

http://grading.bcfservices.org.uk/help.php

Which says a 110 ECF rating corresponds to FIDE 1800 playing strength.
Yes, it says: For FIDE ratings lower than this, and for ECF Grading purposes only, a different formula is used:

And it says an equivalent "national rating" would be 1480. That is consistent with my data.http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?subject=ECF_v._USCF_Ratings&threadid=100142
Phlabibit
Mystic Meg
tinyurl.com/3sbbwd4
Joined
27 Mar '03
Moves
17242
23 Jan '09 16:20
Originally posted by no1marauder
Yes, it says: For FIDE ratings lower than this, and [b]for ECF Grading purposes only, a different formula is used:

And it says an equivalent "national rating" would be 1480. That is consistent with my data.http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?subject=ECF_v._USCF_Ratings&threadid=100142[/b]
Thread 100142
AlboMalapropFoozer
Joined
02 Feb '07
Moves
394
23 Jan '09 16:391 edit
I did some research on a number of sites and the formulas that I saw most frequently were:
FIDE + 100 = USCF
and
(ECF * 8) + 600 = FIDE

so, according to these formulas
ECF 100 = FIDE 1400 = USCF 1500

But, not surprisingly, the story doesn't end there ...

Over the last decade, USCF ratings have not experienced marked inflation or deflation and the FIDE to USCF conversion seems to be moderately accurate, though as ratings get lower, the difference increases somewhat and as ratings get higher, the difference decreases. My estimate on a previous post for USCF masters of a difference of 80 still seems pretty good.

The ECF to FIDE conversion also seems to hold reasonably well for high rated ECF players (I saw one writer who set the threshold at 190, another at 216) but the real problem is that over the last decade, the ECF rating system has experienced significant deflation for lower ranked players. This implies that ECF 100 > USCF 1500. While I find it difficult to believe that the ECF deflation has been so great that an ECF 100 is now equivalent to a USCF 1800 as some posters have suggested, I do consider the idea that an ECF 100 may be equivalent to a USCF 1650 to be well within the realm of possibility.
no1marauder
Naturally Right
Somewhere Else
Joined
22 Jun '04
Moves
42677
23 Jan '09 17:351 edit
Originally posted by AlboMalapropFoozer
I did some research on a number of sites and the formulas that I saw most frequently were:
[b]FIDE + 100 = USCF
and
(ECF * 8) + 600 = FIDE

so, according to these formulas
ECF 100 = FIDE 1400 = USCF 1500

But, not surprisingly, the story doesn't end there ...

Over the last decade, USCF ratings have not experienced marked inf ...[text shortened]... ea that an ECF 100 may be equivalent to a USCF 1650 to be well within the realm of possibility.[/b]
Tell that to Paul Haddock. The folks at the National Open last year obviously didn't agree either or they would have made him play in the U1800 (according to the Brits here, he should have been playing in the U2000 even though he couldn't manage to break even in the U1600).
no1marauder
Naturally Right
Somewhere Else
Joined
22 Jun '04
Moves
42677
23 Jan '09 18:10
USCF Rule 28D1(d) states to convert a ECF rating to a USCF rating for tournament purposes you multiply the 3-digit rating by 8 and add 700. This would agree with the 100 ECF = 1500 USCF standard.
~~Jie~~
Account suspended
Joined
17 Jul '08
Moves
1218
23 Jan '09 19:18
Originally posted by no1marauder
Your personal attacks are uninteresting. Your argument remains fallacious.
Its not a "personal attack". If your rating is 1200 FIDE Elo, be proud of it. that is your hard work. I'm sure you are proud of your hard work here reaching 2150 or whatever your rating here.

What I was telling you is that there is room for improvement, and you should not delude yourself into thinking that you are under-rated OTB. I was actually giving you a way out of your hole.
no1marauder
Naturally Right
Somewhere Else
Joined
22 Jun '04
Moves
42677
24 Jan '09 10:571 edit
Originally posted by Jie
Its not a "personal attack". If your rating is 1200 FIDE Elo, be proud of it. that is your hard work. I'm sure you are proud of your hard work here reaching 2150 or whatever your rating here.

What I was telling you is that there is room for improvement, and you should not delude yourself into thinking that you are under-rated OTB. I was actually giving you a way out of your hole.
It's no surprise that your knowledge of chess is so limited that you believe such rot. See ya at your next banning.

FYI there is no such thing as a FIDE 1200 ELO.
~~Jie~~
Account suspended
Joined
17 Jul '08
Moves
1218
24 Jan '09 12:24
Originally posted by no1marauder
It's no surprise that your knowledge of chess is so limited that you believe such rot. See ya at your next banning.

FYI there is no such thing as a FIDE 1200 ELO.
There is no FIDE 1200 Elo because the FIDE scale is high but that would be the equivalent if your rating is converted, which indicates that at the minimum, you should not consider yourself highly rated OTB. There are people on the site rated 2200 FIDE OTB and we do not see them blowing their trumpets.

A FIDE rating is like a gold mine so everyone cannot have one but conversions exist so that you may be gauged at which level you can play in another countries system.

How is my knowledge of chess limited BTW? If we did battle on ICC, would you beat me at bullet, blitz, standard or even classical? Even on the RHP blitz thing could you really take me on?
heinzkat
Joined
25 Apr '06
Moves
5939
24 Jan '09 12:33
Originally posted by no1marauder
FYI there is no such thing as a FIDE 1200 ELO.
But there is such a thing as a FIDE 1200 playing strength, correct? If your performance at a FIDE rated tournament would be 1200, they simply wouldn't give you that rating if I am informed correctly.

I find it quite humorous that all these conversions give highly different results. I.e. that one formula from the USCF gave us USCF 1500 ~ FIDE 1248 (which seems a bit too low) and the other from the BCF gave us USCF 1500 ~ FIDE 1800 (which seems quite a bit too high). And then there is USCF 1500 ~ FIDE 1400 from AlboMalapropFoozer, which I find an OK estimate...
Dragon Fire
Lord of all beasts
searching for truth
Joined
06 Jun '06
Moves
30390
24 Jan '09 12:501 edit
Originally posted by heinzkat
But there is such a thing as a FIDE 1200 playing strength, correct? If your performance at a FIDE rated tournament would be 1200, they simply wouldn't give you that rating if I am informed correctly.

I find it quite humorous that all these conversions give highly different results. I.e. that one formula from the USCF gave us USCF 1500 ~ FIDE 1248 (which ...[text shortened]... And then there is USCF 1500 ~ FIDE 1400 from AlboMalapropFoozer, which I find an OK estimate...
I agree totally with you.

I can't understand why no1marauder is so determined to talk up his USCF rating.

It is what it is. It is valid within that pool and that pool alone. RHP ratings are valid within this pool. There is no direct conversion or comparison although there may be a correlation.

ECF grades are valid within the UK only. They are not calculated using the ELO formula and cannot be directly converted to USCF or FIDE grades. Guidelines on these conversions exist but only so that an opinion can be formed on the strength of foreign players in an ECF tournament or vice versa and differing bodies have differing formula. No conversion is totally accurate.

One thing we do know is that ECF gradings at lower levels have been significantly deflated over the years which is why next year an adjustment is being made and ECF135 players will become about ECF150. An ECF 80 player will likely become about ECF100 which using the formula 600 + (ECF * 8) = 1400 [FIDE]. We also know that USCF ratings are slightly inflated compared to FIDE so USCF1500 = FIDE1400. Therefore this implies, whether you agree with it or not that a current ECF80 = a current USCF1500.

All of these facts are clear in previous posts in this thread including some made by no1marauder.

I rest my case.
no1marauder
Naturally Right
Somewhere Else
Joined
22 Jun '04
Moves
42677
24 Jan '09 14:432 edits
Originally posted by Dragon Fire
I agree totally with you.

I can't understand why no1marauder is so determined to talk up his USCF rating.

It is what it is. It is valid within that pool and that pool alone. RHP ratings are valid within this pool. There is no direct conversion or comparison although there may be a correlation.

ECF grades are valid within the UK only. They are no ...[text shortened]... e clear in previous posts in this thread including some made by no1marauder.

I rest my case.
You people are idiots. I'm not the one who even brought up my OTB rating (YOU did on page 3) and I'm certainly not "talking it up". I'm actually answering the first post in this thread using what data I have.

When the ECF artificially increases its rating, I'm sure the USCF will adjust its formula to correct for this. There is absolutely zero evidence to support your bizarre notion that a present ECF 80 equates to a USCF 1500 and you saying it over and over again doesn't constitute such evidence. I personally would like to uncover more instances of Brits with establish ECF ratings playing in USCF tourneys, but so far I've found only one using the internet and that was Paul Haddock at last year's National Open. You've steadfastly ignored that case, which is understandable because it hardly supports your unsubstantiated claims.

The USCF probably somewhat overcompensates in its adjustments as a stated goal is "providing a degree of protection for the players with established USCF ratings". So a 100 ECF is probably a bit below USCF 1500 as Haddock's results indicate.

The USCF does have a good reason to make realistic assessments of how other ratings convert to USCF ratings as keeping the sections within the boundaries of players' skills is important. First prize in the National Open U1600 was $12,000, so if ECF 102's would really have "slaughtered" USCF's Class C's it would have behooved the tournament directors to put him in a higher section. They didn't and the results speak for themselves.
no1marauder
Naturally Right
Somewhere Else
Joined
22 Jun '04
Moves
42677
24 Jan '09 15:011 edit
Originally posted by Jie
There is no FIDE 1200 Elo because the FIDE scale is high but that would be the equivalent if your rating is converted, which indicates that at the minimum, you should not consider yourself highly rated OTB. There are people on the site rated 2200 FIDE OTB and we do not see them blowing their trumpets.

A FIDE rating is like a gold mine so everyone cannot have ...[text shortened]... let, blitz, standard or even classical? Even on the RHP blitz thing could you really take me on?
I don't consider myself "highly rated OTB"; I consider myself what I am according to the rating distributions which is a bit above average adult tournament player (about 80 points higher than the median). I certainly haven't been "blowing my trumpet" about that and if was DF who brought my rating up and you who have been harping about it in every one of your posts for a few pages now.

You get a FIDE rating by playing in a FIDE tournament which are few and far between in the US. If I played in such a tournament, I'd play in the appropriate USCF section (or higher if I wanted to) and my FIDE rating would be what it would be. FIDE uses a somewhat different ELO system than the one used by the USCF, so conversions based on just a USCF rating are little better than guesswork.

I have no interest in playing someone who has shown the lack of integrity you have for obvious reasons. I have an ICC account which I use mostly for 20 minute games and my rating there is almost exactly halfway between my OTB one and my rating here. Players on the net collectively just aren't as good as those who have the actual initiative to play in OTB tourneys.
no1marauder
Naturally Right
Somewhere Else
Joined
22 Jun '04
Moves
42677
24 Jan '09 15:051 edit
DF and Jie seem determined to make this a flaming thread. Here's Fat Lady's first post:

I've got a question for our American fiends.

I'm trying to determine how strong a player with a USCF rating of 1500 is. I've always thought that USCF ratings were roughly the same as FIDE ratings and there is a formula for converting ECF grades to FIDE ratings: 1250 + ECF*5 = FIDE.

However that formula would suggest that a player with a USCF rating of 1500 would have an ECF grade of roughly 50, which seems to me to be far too low.

Does anyone here have experience in playing competitive OTB chess in both Britain and America? If so, what rating and grade did you achieve?

I know of only one player who had a grade of 155 in Britain and obtained a USCF rating of just over 2000 when he moved to America. However I'm more interested in slightly weaker players, those I would consider "average club players" in Britain with a grade between say, 100 and 130.

no1: That's what I have been addressing with the data I can find and what the others here haven't been addressing (at least with any actual evidence).
~~Jie~~
Account suspended
Joined
17 Jul '08
Moves
1218
24 Jan '09 15:12
Originally posted by no1marauder
I have no interest in playing someone who has shown the lack of integrity you have for obvious reasons. I have an ICC account which I use mostly for 20 minute games and my rating there is almost exactly halfway between my OTB one and my rating here. Players on the net collectively just aren't as good as those who have the actual initiative to play in OTB tourneys.
I would not mind kicking your b*** at 20 mins on ICC or even on the RHP flagpole especially since you claim I "lack chess knowledge". You are the one going ballistic then seeking to change the topic when you are on the losing side.
no1marauder
Naturally Right
Somewhere Else
Joined
22 Jun '04
Moves
42677
24 Jan '09 15:17
Originally posted by heinzkat
But there is such a thing as a FIDE 1200 playing strength, correct? If your performance at a FIDE rated tournament would be 1200, they simply wouldn't give you that rating if I am informed correctly.

I find it quite humorous that all these conversions give highly different results. I.e. that one formula from the USCF gave us USCF 1500 ~ FIDE 1248 (which ...[text shortened]... And then there is USCF 1500 ~ FIDE 1400 from AlboMalapropFoozer, which I find an OK estimate...
That is correct; if the performance was under 1400 according to the FIDE elo system the player would remain "unrated".

The USCF gives three different formulas for converting FIDE ratings to USCF in Rule 28D1 (which are "provided for guidance"😉. Two are simple: USCF = FIDE + 50 and USCF = FIDE = 100. The other is USCF = 0.895 (FIDE) + 367. The last formula was derived from comparing the ratings of 838 USCF players who had FIDE ratings, but these were all higher rated players, at least Class A and the vast majority Expert or better. Since no C's were included in these calculations, there is no reason to believe that the formula is valid at C levels.

The same rule gives a formula for converting ECF ratings to USCF and that is to multiply the ECF by 8 and add 100. That appears to give approximately accurate results from the limited data we have. This does not equate to the ECF's formula for converting ECF ratings to FIDE, however. That formula seems flawed at the levels we are discussing.

Only Chess Forum

USCF rating to ECF grade