Originally posted by RookRAKIt reveals, among other things, that if my RHP rating remains consistently higher than my USCF, and if this phenomenon forms a pattern that is true for other RHP users, then the competition at RHP is considerably less talented than those competing in USCF events.
For what it's worth ...
There seems to be general consensus that the ratings at RHP and USCF do not correlate, but I got to wondering about it, and decided to do a little simple analysis.
USCF rating in general do not represent a normal distribution. This is largely because USCF heavily signs up "scholastic" members - kids who might play a tourname ...[text shortened]... flatter curve (i.e. higher standard deviation) I have no idea, but I thought it was interesting.
My current USCF rating of 1550 puts me near the 75th percentile among USCF members, while my RHP rating in the mid-1600s puts me over the 90th here.
On the other hand, I know that in OTB tournaments I do as well against B players as I do against C and D, and lose many because of simple tactical oversights that are extremely rare for me in RHP games. I lose relatively fewer games to lower rated players at RHP. When the clock is ticking at RHP, I can go to bed and wake up prepared for a good move. When it ticks in an OTB event, I've got to move, and may often blunder.
Yes, I believe that is the key. It's much more stressful when playing OTB. Also, you don't have the vast amount of time (like on RHP) to analyze the position. But, put it this way. I rarely take over very long on my RHP moves. I use no books or computers. The average time I take on every game I would estimate to be around an hour or less. So, I'm playing within the same time constraints as OTB. Now, wouldn't my rating on here be closer to a USCF rating under those circumstances? Chess is chess, right? Also, my opponent's rating is 1400+, too. The only problem I see with this conception is that some rated players on RHP get their higher ratings by playing much weaker players. For example, their opponent's rating on their profile may be 1300 players and their own rating could be 1700. I believe a 1700 rated player with an opponent's rating of 1700 is definitely going to be stronger than a 1700 player with an opponent's rating of 1300. It's simple logic. If a 1700 player keeps playing 1400 rated opponents and wins... his rating will increase. Of course, he will have to play many games to get that 1700 score.
Okay, what about this question along the same lines? If my RHP rating is in the 1429, could I then assume that I would have to be at least a 1300-1600 player after seeing everyone's OTB ratings compared to RHP? This is only taking at most an hour on each game and not using books, databases, etc... How much would the deviation be within reason?
Originally posted by powershakerWin Expectancy = 1 / (10^((OpponentRating-YourRating)/400)+1)
Yes, I believe that is the key. It's much more stressful when playing OTB. Also, you don't have the vast amount of time (like on RHP) to analyze the position. But, put it this way. I rarely take over very long on my RHP moves. I use no books or computers. The average time I take on every game I would estimate to be around an hour or less. So, I ...[text shortened]... .. his rating will increase. Of course, he will have to play many games to get that 1700 score.
New Rating = Old Rating + K * (Score - Win Expectancy)
Originally posted by powershakerNo. All such assumptions are fraught with danger.
Okay, what about this question along the same lines? If my RHP rating is in the 1429, could I then assume that I would have to be at least a 1300-1600 player after seeing everyone's OTB ratings compared to RHP? This is only taking at most an hour on each game and not using books, databases, etc... How much would the deviation be within reason?
However, if you maintain a mid-1400s rating at RHP over hundreds of games, and a comparable rating on ICC for blitz (their 5 0 pool is the most accurate) over many hundreds, then achieving a mid-1300s rating in OTB play after 3-4 dozen games would be, at least, unsurprising.