Your true online rating

Originally posted by @paul-leggett
Wow, you sure drew some pretty heady conclusions from a small and nebulous data set.

I am one of the Welcome Game players on the site, and as a rule I always have 5 games going on from players new to the site, with "p1200" ratings. Some are very good, but many barely know how to move the pieces. I don't care, the game is fun, and I just try to hel ...[text shortened]...

As the numbers go, that has you classifying me as a pathetic and insecure creature. Oh well!

As the numbers go, that has you classifying me as a pathetic and insecure creature. Oh well!


Not true. p1200 are sometimes very strong folks that are simply new here. I am talking about players in the 1600 level and above who play against people at least 300 points below themselves they know full well are much weaker players. p1200 is a wild card.

Personally I believe the only rating that counts for anything is a national or international OTB rating. The online world contains too many variables and even within the same game the levels of application/distraction/analysis/time used can mean that one side of the game is being played to different rules to the other. Playing pools make a difference too. On this site my general impression is that a non sub will often play to a 150-200 point higher level than the equivalent rated subscriber. All this before we discuss the issue of computer engine use.

It is also true that one can want different things from the game at different times in life.
Right now I am not active in OTB, I don't want to spend hours on either game analysis or opening research neither do I wish to play lots of opponents who may be using computer assistance. I like to have moves to play when I sit down for a cuppa so I will tend to bash out a dozen or more within a few minutes in three or four bursts a day. Most of the other players who like to to do this too tend to be high volume, mostly - but not exclusively - lower rated players who will carry large game loads which they rattle off at speed. So by tacit agreement we will enter the same rapid tournaments and pick up the faster paced open invites, take on more games than is sensible, and bash out the moves. Yes some of them can play quite weakly but every so often I will come a cropper and have a number of losses to players much lower rated than I, and many other games where I should have lost, but escape. The rating advantage does not guarantee a win against a lower rated player just a percentage likelihood.

Originally posted by @mchill
As the numbers go, that has you classifying me as a pathetic and insecure creature. Oh well!


Not true. p1200 are sometimes very strong folks that are simply new here. I am talking about players in the 1600 level and above who play against people at least 300 points below themselves they know full well are much weaker players. p1200 is a wild card.

Actualy it is true, and I have hundreds of my own games to prove it, but it is only one subset of my total point, which is that your conclusion is judgmental and basically wrong. Speculating negatively about why others play the opponents they do is pointless and mean-spirited, and the time would be better spent reviewing endgame or tactics or anything that would improve ypur game. Or you could help a lower-rated player learn to play better- there's more than just winning and losing sometimes.

If you only play opponents of approx. the same rating and improve it is inevitable
that your average opponent rating will be lower than your current rating.

In fact if you never, ever played someone weaker than yourself you could
still end up with a rating far higher than your average opponent rating.

I noticed that the other day but I was talking about a rating difference by 100 or more. Some have a rating difference by 300!

Originally posted by @paul-leggett
Amen. As a rule I will accept a game from anyone on the site, as long as the time control is OK. I consider online ratings to be almost valueless, so I don't really care.

All that said, I do value my OTB USCF rating, and I have won games OTB based on ideas I have learned here as practice. And I can learn from anyone here.

Just for comparison, your rating here is about 1900, what is your USCF rating?

My USCF and RHP rating are about the same, 1700 ish.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Just for comparison, your rating here is about 1900, what is your USCF rating?

My USCF and RHP rating are about the same, 1700 ish.

In the last year my USCF rating has been in the middle 1800 range. My next published will be 1823.

The gap between my RHP and USCF rating has varied from 100-250 points, with the RHP rating being higher. The busier I am at work and in life, the smaller the gap shrinks. I work at Disney's Hollywood Studios and we are about to open Toy Story Land, so I am a little sloppier and my rating here and OTB is suffering a little.

For a multitude of reasons, I consider RHP ratings to be almost useless for gauging the strength of a player, so I tend to ignore them.

Originally posted by @paul-leggett
In the last year my USCF rating has been in the middle 1800 range. My next published will be 1823.

The gap between my RHP and USCF rating has varied from 100-250 points, with the RHP rating being higher. The busier I am at work and in life, the smaller the gap shrinks. I work at Disney's Hollywood Studios and we are about to open Toy Story Land, ...[text shortened]... RHP ratings to be almost useless for gauging the strength of a player, so I tend to ignore them.

Hi Paul,
I personally wouldn't say that RHP ratings are almost useless for gauging the strength of a player...

It's true that players' current ratings can fluctuate wildly (particularly those with a lot of games on at the same time), and I don't pay too much attention to them.

But I think the 90 days/1 year average ratings are quite a good guide to opponents' strength, and when I'm taking on challenges, this is what I tend to look at.

My own yearly average has been fluctuating between 1700 and 1750 for quite a long time now, and I think it's fair to say I've found my level on this site.
If I play a few games against someone with a similar average rating, we'll often find ourselves evenly matched.
But if I play someone with an average rating of, say, 1800 or 1850, it's normally the case that I'll be struggling, and I've found that players of 1900+ consistently give me a lesson in how to play better chess!

I agree of course that the RHP ratings don't translate to USCF or FIDE or any other rating pool, and as I say I'm wary of current ratings here.

But for me the average ratings seem quite a reasonable guide for how tough (or easy) I might expect to find my opponent.

Originally posted by @tommovich
Hi Paul,
I personally wouldn't say that RHP ratings are almost useless for gauging the strength of a player...

It's true that players' current ratings can fluctuate wildly (particularly those with a lot of games on at the same time), and I don't pay too much attention to them.

But I think the 90 days/1 year average ratings are quite a good guide to ...[text shortened]... atings seem quite a reasonable guide for how tough (or easy) I might expect to find my opponent.

Yeah, I think I was a little hyperbolic there! I should have said something like "questionable value" rather than "almost useless. Within the context of RHP they have some value, although my experience has been that for the range of players below 2200 here, a 200 point difference does not mean much.

I think you are correct that the one year rating gives a better approximation. At the same time, every player has a unique playing pool, and the OP does have a valid point about how this can skew the ratings. Tournament ratings may be a little more accurate, but even they lack the integrity of a control group.

Numbers always appear to be discrete and definitive, but the source is everything, I think.

I have played lower-rated players here with great positional play but who will just drop something on a careless move (cell phones and chess don't mix, I suspect), while higher-rated players I play here will play some dubious positional moves and survive the tactics but lose the ending.

Crystal balls and tea leaves!

Originally posted by @nevare
Not me. I just noticed a lot of higher ranked players on this site have an average opponent rating much lower than their rating. Mine is about even.

You need to factor in the social element. I try to play opponents of similar or higher rating to myself, but also enjoy playing friends on the site, who may have lower ratings, but due to the gameboard chat make the encounters a lot of fun. (My average opponent rating is about 100 less than my 1700 grade, but I'm cool with that).

Remember, ratings produce a steep curve. I had a look through the stats and a rating of 1800 puts one in the top 1%. This does not take into account those players who are not playing anymore, as I cannot obtain those stats from anywhere.

I doubt there's a significant correlation (if at all) between being lowly rated and ceasing to play on here so I don't think it should skew the data. For an 1800 player to only play their equals or betters, they would have to restrict play to the top 1% of players on here. Also, for most people, it's just about playing with friends and having fun. I doubt many people take it that seriously so as to only play people lower than them on purpose - it's just because this site is almost exclusively low-rated players that that phenomenon occurs.

Originally posted by @ashiitaka
Remember, ratings produce a steep curve. I had a look through the stats and a rating of 1800 puts one in the top 1%. This does not take into account those players who are not playing anymore, as I cannot obtain those stats from anywhere.

I doubt there's a significant correlation (if at all) between being lowly rated and ceasing to play on here so I do ...[text shortened]... it's just because this site is almost exclusively low-rated players that that phenomenon occurs.

Well said.

I will only add that a person who stops playing here will tend to have a much lower rating than their true strength, simply because many people just resign all their games when they quit.

Over the years I have had several opponents who have passed away, and if it was unexpected, you will suddenly see them timing out on every game, and the rating curve suddenly dives.

There is a maudlin "time running out" comment here, waiting to be made.

Originally posted by @paul-leggett
Well said.

I will only add that a person who stops playing here will tend to have a much lower rating than their true strength, simply because many people just resign all their games when they quit.

Over the years I have had several opponents who have passed away, and if it was unexpected, you will suddenly see them timing out on every game, and ...[text shortened]... curve suddenly dives.

There is a maudlin "time running out" comment here, waiting to be made.

"There is a maudlin "time running out" comment here, waiting to be made."


I refuse to make it sir.

Originally posted by @knightstalker47
Strong players make big mistakes sometimes they're just less frequent.

It helps when they are working hundreds of games at once.

My online rating is FAKE NEWS!