How to estimate your FIDE rating (conversion formula inside) • page 10/36 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

By the way please note the word "Estimate" in the title.

The OP didn't claim that his formula is 100% accurate. He clearly stated that it is an estimate. Even +-200 points is still considered a good estimate, in my opinion.

By the way please note the word "Estimate" in the title. The OP didn't claim that his formula is 100% accurate. He clearly stated that it is an estimate. Even +-200 points is still considered a good estimate, in my opinion.

mdinnerspace edited

#92

+/- 200 points a good estimate ???
Funny stuff. What's the point of the excercise?

Here is the issue: It's not the estimate made, but the formula itself which is faulty. It does not give consistent results.

Using the formula a player with a blitz rating and classical rating in the range of 2100, the resulting estimated FIDE rating is LOWER than their online ratings by 100+ points.

Using the formula a player with a blitz rating and a classical rating in the range of 1000, the resulting estimated FIDE rating is HIGHER than their online ratings by 100+ points.

Higher rated players are estimated with lower FIDE ratings than their online rating.
Lower rated players are estimated with higher FIDE ratings than their online rating.

Conclusion: whatever estimate is made, it is not viable. The formula is not an equality,

+/- 200 points a good estimate ??? Funny stuff. What's the point of the excercise? Here is the issue: It's not the estimate made, but the formula itself which is faulty. It does not give consistent results. Using the formula a player with a blitz rating and classical rating in the range of 2100, the resulting estimated FIDE rating is LOWER than their online ratings by 100+ points. Using the formula a player with a blitz rating and a classical rating in the range of 1000, the resulting estimated FIDE rating is HIGHER than their online ratings by 100+ points. Higher rated players are estimated with lower FIDE ratings than their online rating. Lower rated players are estimated with higher FIDE ratings than their online rating. Conclusion: whatever estimate is made, it is not viable. The formula is not an equality,

dudeski_robinson edited

#93

[edit]

Forget it. I think we've written enough text. People can read this and decide who is more credible.

[edit] Forget it. I think we've written enough text. People can read this and decide who is more credible.

CM Sarg0n

edited

#94

Btw, measuring a fluctuating value from 0-3000 with an accuracy of +-100 is "perfect". "+-300" means 10% of the measuring range which is still acceptable but could be better.

So, well done again. Think of all the people here who prove the result of the empirical research right.

Btw, measuring a fluctuating value from 0-3000 with an accuracy of +-100 is "perfect". "+-300" means 10% of the measuring range which is still acceptable but could be better. So, well done again. Think of all the people here who prove the result of the empirical research right.

mdinnerspace edited

#95

@dudeski_robinson

Want credibilty?
Please explain: using your formula, the higher rated online player is estimated with a FIDE rating LOWER than their online rating; while lower rated player, using your formula, the estimated FIDE rating results in a HIGHER FIDE rating than their online rating.

From: Baffled. Lower rated players are estimated to be better at OTB than online, but higher rated players are worse?

@dudeski_robinson Want credibilty? Please explain: using your formula, the higher rated online player is estimated with a FIDE rating LOWER than their online rating; while lower rated player, using your formula, the estimated FIDE rating results in a HIGHER FIDE rating than their online rating. From: Baffled. Lower rated players are estimated to be better at OTB than online, but higher rated players are worse?

dudeski_robinson edited

#96

That's absolutely normal.

Look at the imgur graph again.
Try to draw a straight line through the center of the cloud (that's what my model does).
Try to see whose ratings are most inflated

If you're smart, you might figure it out eventually.

Have a good life.

That's absolutely normal. 1. Look at the imgur graph again. 2. Try to draw a straight line through the center of the cloud (that's what my model does). 3. Try to see whose ratings are most inflated If you're smart, you might figure it out eventually. Have a good life.

mdinnerspace edited

#97

I'd suggest the opposite to be true. Higher rated players will tend perform reasonably well, closer to their online rating. Lower rated players tend to be unpredictable, they could very well under perform their online rating in the new experience of OTB play.
There simply are too many factors, no formula can come close to make a viable prediction.

All one needs to do, is subtract 100 points from their classical/correspondence rating here to estimate a FIDE rating. It's that simple.

Your "graph" is built upon results here at Lichess. So yes, it is very easy to derive a formula based on the premise online ratings have an empirical relationship to OTB ratings. There may well be some truth, but only after a rating is established, after 100's of games.
What you are proposing, is a formula, for players that have no FIDE OTB rating, to estimate a rating based on their online rating. This can not be done. Their resulting FIDE rating will fall anywhere within a wide range, only occasionally within the "median" range your formula is based upon.

I'd suggest the opposite to be true. Higher rated players will tend perform reasonably well, closer to their online rating. Lower rated players tend to be unpredictable, they could very well under perform their online rating in the new experience of OTB play. There simply are too many factors, no formula can come close to make a viable prediction. All one needs to do, is subtract 100 points from their classical/correspondence rating here to estimate a FIDE rating. It's that simple. Your "graph" is built upon results here at Lichess. So yes, it is very easy to derive a formula based on the premise online ratings have an empirical relationship to OTB ratings. There may well be some truth, but only after a rating is established, after 100's of games. What you are proposing, is a formula, for players that have no FIDE OTB rating, to estimate a rating based on their online rating. This can not be done. Their resulting FIDE rating will fall anywhere within a wide range, only occasionally within the "median" range your formula is based upon.

jg777

#98

Math doesn't lie and if you took a statistics class you'd understand the OP's statements about his formula and why he weights numbers differently due to the data he is using. He's telling you how and why his formula is correct and you aren't specifically challenging them outside of claiming the results don't make sense in practice. You might be baffled at the results of his formula but his formula is correctly derived from the data he drew from and while yes it is an estimate, it's a very educated estimate based on sound math and statistical principles from what I can see. I'll be interested in seeing the results from users here who can confirm their FIDE rating and input the formula to see if the estimate is close. To summarize, your reject the formula because the results don't make sense to you but you aren't telling him how, mathematically, his formula is wrong. Please do that.

^^^^^^^

Please.. Please !!!
Someone explain... How it is a fact, that higher rated online players will achieve a lower rated OTB FIDE rating than their online blitz rating...

While lower rated online players will achieve a higher FIDE rating in OTB play than their blitz online rating?

Give the evidence. Stop this drawing a straight line through clouds. A mathematical formula that exists as an equation is WRONG when it gives a result for the 2000 rated as a lower number, and a result for the 1000 player as higher number. Nobody is arguing about the math and the given result, except that one result is not equal to the other, Hence it is not a viable formula.

Do the Math !

Please.. Please !!! Someone explain... How it is a fact, that higher rated online players will achieve a lower rated OTB FIDE rating than their online blitz rating... While lower rated online players will achieve a higher FIDE rating in OTB play than their blitz online rating? Give the evidence. Stop this drawing a straight line through clouds. A mathematical formula that exists as an equation is WRONG when it gives a result for the 2000 rated as a lower number, and a result for the 1000 player as higher number. Nobody is arguing about the math and the given result, except that one result is not equal to the other, Hence it is not a viable formula. Do the Math !