I noticed something recently! I researched my chess computer - or one similar to it made by the same company - and I finally realized that a 1700 USCF e-chess only plays at a 1500 ELO. That's what the chart said. So, ELO must be stronger than USCF. This would explain it. I must be 1500 ELO and my USCF strength 1700. That's what the confusion was I believe. And, it's odd that my rating is in the 1500s on RHP after 100 games. I think RHP ratings if you use no sources or databases, etc... could possibly be equivalent to true ELO ratings after 100 games. USCF ratings are more inflated than ELO ratings. I don't know about CCF and BCF, etc... Maybe someone can tell me. I know in Australia - where I use to live - their ratings were 100 points lower than the USCF. Maybe someone else has had similar awakening to the fact of ELO versus USCF, BCF and CCF?
Originally posted by powershakerJust stop trying.
I noticed something recently! I researched my chess computer - or one similar to it made by the same company - and I finally realized that a 1700 USCF e-chess only plays at a 1500 ELO. That's what the chart said. So, ELO must be stronger than USCF. This would explain it. I must be 1500 ELO and my USCF strength 1700. That's what the confusion was I ...[text shortened]... . Maybe someone else has had similar awakening to the fact of ELO versus USCF, BCF and CCF?
Originally posted by powershakerYour obsession with mediocrity is superlative.
I noticed something recently! I researched my chess computer - or one similar to it made by the same company - and I finally realized that a 1700 USCF e-chess only plays at a 1500 ELO. That's what the chart said. So, ELO must be stronger than USCF. This would explain it. I must be 1500 ELO and my USCF strength 1700. That's what the confusion was I ...[text shortened]... . Maybe someone else has had similar awakening to the fact of ELO versus USCF, BCF and CCF?
Ratings measure results NOT ability. Let me tell you a couple of anecdotes......
USCF ratings are generally lower than ELO (International). For example. An IM I know is rated 2500+ USCF because he plays in just about every small local tmt. that comes up, beats up on the local experts, collects his prize and goes home. Because he rarely loses, his rating maintains at that level. His ELO rating is about 2350 because in Int’l play, against REAL 2550 players, he doesn’t do so good.
I also know of one 2100 Expert who could never quite make it to Master. So, what he did was start directing a bunch of small tmts, if there were any drop outs, he played the person who would have gotten the bye, won and picked up a rating point or two. After a couple years, he went over 2200 and “retired”. We used to say he got his Master’s rating one point at a time.
That is how the legendary Claude Bloodgood got to be one of the highest rated players is the country back in (I think) the 60’s. He directed tmts. and played hundreds of rated games in the Virginia Penitentiary. He was about Expert, but got to Senior Master before the USCF realized what happened.
If I keep playing 1400 players and rarely lose, eventually I’ll get to, say, 1800. Am I really 1800 if the only players I ever beat are 1200-1400 rated? Not likely. Going up against a real 1800, I’ll probably lose most of the time.
I don’t know if this answers your question, but it’s a thought.
Originally posted by masscatIf you have the consistency to reach 1800 in such a manner, then it's a rating of 1800 no matter which way you look at it. Failing that, the rating system would have a flaw in it, but I don't think that's the case.
If I keep playing 1400 players and rarely lose, eventually I’ll get to, say, 1800.
Remember, consistently beating significantly lower opponents may sounds easy but the points gained gets less and less. And the points lost, if you fail to win, increases. It becomes a steeper and steeper hill to climb.
V.
Originally posted by powershakerIf we all agree with you, do you promise never to mention it again?
I noticed something recently! I researched my chess computer - or one similar to it made by the same company - and I finally realized that a 1700 USCF e-chess only plays at a 1500 ELO. That's what the chart said. So, ELO must be stronger than USCF. This would explain it. I must be 1500 ELO and my USCF strength 1700. That's what the confusion was I ...[text shortened]... . Maybe someone else has had similar awakening to the fact of ELO versus USCF, BCF and CCF?
Originally posted by powershakerI'm sure that if you would have put more time in your chess game instead of rating research, you would have gotten to your 'true rating' already.
I noticed something recently! I researched my chess computer - or one similar to it made by the same company - and I finally realized that a 1700 USCF e-chess only plays at a 1500 ELO. That's what the chart said. So, ELO must be stronger than USCF. This would explain it. I must be 1500 ELO and my USCF strength 1700. That's what the confusion was I ...[text shortened]... . Maybe someone else has had similar awakening to the fact of ELO versus USCF, BCF and CCF?
Stop talking about it. Start playing.
Originally posted by VarenkaI'm not the one that said ratings measure results not ability...Prof. Arpad Elo said it.
If you have the consistency to reach 1800 in such a manner, then it's a rating of 1800 no matter which way you look at it. Failing that, the rating system would have a flaw in it, but I don't think that's the case.
V.
At the upcoming Chicago Open, Continental Chess is adding 100 pts to FIDE ratings....I thought it was to bring them up to USCF ratings.
Originally posted by masscatyes that's right.
I'm not the one that said ratings measure results not ability...Prof. Arpad Elo said it.
At the upcoming Chicago Open, Continental Chess is adding 100 pts to FIDE ratings....I thought it was to bring them up to USCF ratings.
but whoever started this post is an idiot, first of all it's Elo, not ELO. Someone mentioned that the rating system was invented by a man named Elo.
Second of all, the USCF ratings are Elo ratings. They use a ratings system based on Elo's invention. Maybe you mean FIDE ratings, which are generally considered to be 100 points lower than USCF ratings.
Originally posted by masscatIt doesn't necisarily follow. In order to hit 1800 while only playing 1400 players, you'd have to win (and possibly draw only one or two games) for about 100 games straight! I'm 4 points off 1800 and i'll tell you now, I certainly couldn't go on a 100 game winning streak! Sooner or later you meet a new player who happens to be 1400 at the time of play but is actually 2000+ in strength. This knocks 30 points off your grade each time, by the time you've made it back your playing another new player and so on...
If I keep playing 1400 players and rarely lose, eventually I’ll get to, say, 1800. Am I really 1800 if the only players I ever beat are 1200-1400 rated? Not likely. Going up against a real 1800, I’ll probably lose most of the time.
I don’t know if this answers your question, but it’s a thought.
Originally posted by GambitzoidThe system was invented by a mathemetician named Arpad Elo. When discussing the formula, it is usually all caps (ELO) to differentiate between the man and the formula. Your second point is correct.
yes that's right.
but whoever started this post is an idiot, first of all it's Elo, not ELO. Someone mentioned that the rating system was invented by a man named Elo.
Second of all, the USCF ratings are Elo ratings. They use a ratings system based on Elo's invention. Maybe you mean FIDE ratings, which are generally considered to be 100 points lower than USCF ratings.
I wish SOME people would do a little research before they start giving opinions. There is plenty of technical explanations of the rating system, what it does and doesn't do, out there. While you're at it, read what Mark Gliksman (master and mathematician) has to say.
Originally posted by BLReidhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELO_rating_system
The system was invented by a mathemetician named Arpad Elo. When discussing the formula, it is usually all caps (ELO) to differentiate between the man and the formula. Your second point is correct.
The phrase "ELO rating" is often used to mean a player's chess rating as calculated by FIDE. However, this usage is confusing and often misleading, because Élő's general ideas have been adopted by many different organizations, including the USCF (before FIDE), the Internet Chess Club (ICC), Yahoo! Games, and the now defunct Professional Chess Association (PCA). Each organization has a unique implementation, and none of them precisely follows Élő's original suggestions. It would be more accurate to refer to all of the above ratings as ELO ratings, and none of them as the ELO rating.
Originally posted by GambitzoidNo, I'm not. I just thought it strange that my Mephisto is rated 1880 Elo and has a 2080 USCF rating? Now, why is that? Why the 200 point difference? And, by everything I've calculated, it's true. An Elo strength of 1800 is really a 1600 Elo rating. Or else why are computers rated with that difference?
yes that's right.
but whoever started this post is an idiot, first of all it's Elo, not ELO. Someone mentioned that the rating system was invented by a man named Elo.
Second of all, the USCF ratings are Elo ratings. They use a ratings system based on Elo's invention. Maybe you mean FIDE ratings, which are generally considered to be 100 points lower than USCF ratings.