Glicko and Elo should converge to the same rating.
Indeed seeding at 1500 here and 1200 elsewhere makes a difference. However, we do not discuss other sites here, we discuss the difference to FIDE Elo. It seems that the rating here is higher than the corresponding FIDE Elo. This is indeed caused by the seeding at 1500.
Indeed seeding at 1500 here and 1200 elsewhere makes a difference. However, we do not discuss other sites here, we discuss the difference to FIDE Elo. It seems that the rating here is higher than the corresponding FIDE Elo. This is indeed caused by the seeding at 1500.
Indeed. "Inflation" is a rather weird thing to think about with ratings, since the absolute value of a rating is meaningless.
Only differences between the ratings of players in the same pool have meaning.
Subtract 1000 points from everyone's ratings and everything works exactly the same. Ditto for adding 1000 points. Make the highest rated player 0, and everyone else -(their rating difference from the highest rated player), and things also work exactly the same.
It's natural to want to figure out what correlations there might be between ratings in different pools/systems, and some very, very rough correlations can be found, but they are just that: very, very rough.
That's not surprising since usually the rating system is different, and the pool of players is usually substantially different.
That applies substantially to comparing ratings between online sites, but even more so to comparisons of online to OTB.
Then, in addition to the considerations above, the conditions are quite different (typical time controls are much different, especially).
Having said all that, there's nothing wrong with trying to find the correlations; you just have to know that any correlations are very rough and should be taken with several pounds of salt.
Only differences between the ratings of players in the same pool have meaning.
Subtract 1000 points from everyone's ratings and everything works exactly the same. Ditto for adding 1000 points. Make the highest rated player 0, and everyone else -(their rating difference from the highest rated player), and things also work exactly the same.
It's natural to want to figure out what correlations there might be between ratings in different pools/systems, and some very, very rough correlations can be found, but they are just that: very, very rough.
That's not surprising since usually the rating system is different, and the pool of players is usually substantially different.
That applies substantially to comparing ratings between online sites, but even more so to comparisons of online to OTB.
Then, in addition to the considerations above, the conditions are quite different (typical time controls are much different, especially).
Having said all that, there's nothing wrong with trying to find the correlations; you just have to know that any correlations are very rough and should be taken with several pounds of salt.
why are people even comparing to chess.com lol, who even cares. Secondly, ur FIDE rating could be anywhere from -700 to -300 from ur classical rating here (unless ur rating is above 2400-2500). If any higher, than one of the two is not accurately reflecting ur skill.
Hmmmm. my USCF rating is around 1900 but my rating here is 1800.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.