20 Dec 06
Originally posted by TommyCThat is true, however in my experience I tend to chat with the people I play corr chess with. In my experience approx 1/3 has a corr rating lower < OTB -100 about 1/3 has a rating +- 100 of their OTB rating and 1/3 have a rating >OTB + 100. That is still too small of a sample to make a definate conclusions, but it is enough to discourage me from doing any more research.
You must know that picking a handful of counter examples is too small and non-random a sample to draw conclusions from?
(I mean, I'm not much of a statistician, but I do know that at least.)
20 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by TommyCexcept that the variance is likely to be huge (because it seems very easy to find extreme examples). you can construct a formula to quite accurately shift from one pool's average to another's average, but if the variance is big, there won't be a lot of people close to that average.
You must know that picking a handful of counter examples is too small and non-random a sample to draw conclusions from?
(I mean, I'm not much of a statistician, but I do know that at least.)
What's 'close' is subjective of course, but if the formula misspredicts the ratings of a large group of people by hundreds of points, it's not any better than saying: "fics blitz ratings tend to be somewhat lower than rhp ratings, but sometimes much higher."
such a formula could not give much information in individual cases, it would only give the illusion of predictability.
20 Dec 06
Originally posted by wormwood*likely* - but not necessarily.
except that the variance is likely to be huge
You are quite possibly right; quite possibly not right.
The only way to test is via practical research.
People like to sound clever by dismissing the possibility of correlation off the cuff. But it would be more clever to do the spade work and get a definite empirical answer.
20 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by TommyCsure. but do you have a habit of doing extensive statistical research on stuff that doesn't seem to offer any significant results? I'm far too lazy for that. I'll only test a hypothesis if it's likely to give meaningful results.
*likely* - but not necessarily.
You are quite possibly right; quite possibly not right.
The only way to test is via practical research.
People like to sound clever by dismissing the possibility of correlation off the cuff. But it would be more clever to do the spade work and get a definite empirical answer.
20 Dec 06
Originally posted by wormwoodWell, since I work for the Statistics Department of a major social science university . . . answer that however you like!
sure. but do you have a habit of doing extensive statistical research on stuff that doesn't seem to offer any significant results? I'm far too lazy for that. I'll only test a hypothesis if it's likely to give meaningful results.
20 Dec 06
Originally posted by TommyCAre you volunteering to do the work? I googled and couldn't find any previous work on this subject? It'
*likely* - but not necessarily.
You are quite possibly right; quite possibly not right.
The only way to test is via practical research.
People like to sound clever by dismissing the possibility of correlation off the cuff. But it would be more clever to do the spade work and get a definite empirical answer.
20 Dec 06
to what end?
Let's say that my 1600 rating here is equal to a 2000+ rating in the USCF.
Will I play better?
I think a general question of what is your rating in the other systems is fair and shouldn't be shat on in here like it always is... If you don't think the systems correlate then don't post your ratings.
It's all rating vanity and meaningless in an actual game. Ratings are meant to give you a challenging game with someone of your own strength. They are not intended to justify your self worth.
20 Dec 06
The real question is whether your rating is rising in all venues, falling, or stagnant. Mine is slowly going up on average (although I have a 300+ point variance in my playchess blitz rating roller coaster).
Just got over 1650 for the first time in USCF OTB. Stll pushing towards 1800 here. Was over 1900 on playchess last week, but dropped to 1558 yesterday.
20 Dec 06
Originally posted by briancronWell said! Years ago in one major city my rating was X. When I moved to another major city my rating became X-200. I didn’t get worse, there was just a much larger pool of strong players in the new city. Reminds me of the time a new guy showed up at the club and after I smashed him a couple of times he said I must be pretty good because where he came from he hardly ever lost. Told him, around here I hardly ever win. He never came back.
Let's say that my 1600 rating here is equal to a 2000+ rating in the USCF.
Will I play better?
It's all rating vanity and meaningless in an actual game. Ratings are meant to give you a challenging game with someone of your own strength. They are not intended to justify your self worth.
21 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by WulebgrWhat about mine it always seems to be going from 1400-1700 (here and other cc sites) 😕
The real question is whether your rating is rising in all venues, falling, or stagnant.
Maybe add another in there: something like sporadic or wavering 😀
21 Dec 06
Originally posted by SSJ4GogetaSSJ4Study hard so as to move your range to 1450-1750. Hit the books; work tactics exercises; hire a tutor.
What about mine it always seems to be going from 1400-1700 (here and other cc sites) 😕
Maybe add another in there: something like sporadic or wavering 😀
21 Dec 06
2 edits
Originally posted by PrashantIt's very hard to make a comparison because it depends how much time you put in here, for example you could have two players with equal elo/ecf ratings but one only spends only a few minutes on each move but the other spends much more time analysing before making a move, then he would have a higher rating here but they are equal otb. Otb is a level playing field (time wise) but cc allows virtually as much time as you like (subject to gameload and free time). Also the number of games you play simultaneously will have an effect on your rating here.
Hi,
I am around 1600 rated here, I dont have a Fide rating.
What could be the equivalent fide rating for a 1600 player on RHP.
Thanks