Whats diffrent between real life rating and online chess rating ? • page 1/2 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

Whats diffrent between real life rating and online chess rating ? as im 1700 in classical format and i would like to know where i can stand a long averege players

willwss edited

#2

The RD measures the accuracy of a player's rating, with one RD being equal to one standard deviation. For example, a player with a rating of 1500 and an RD of 50 has a real strength between 1400 and 1600 (two standard deviations from 1500) with 95% confidence. Twice the RD is added and subtracted from their rating to calculate this range.

Yours is 65. So you are: 1570 ~ 1830. On lichess, RD floor is 50. If you reach an RD of 50 (by playing more games) and keep 1700 then you will be 1600 ~ 1800.

By real life rating I guess you mean FIDE rating. Many players notice an increase of 200 points. So for a 1700 player he will have 1500 FIDE. It is safe to imagine a rating between 300 and 100 less. So in your case you would estimate 'between 1400 and 1600'.

In addition, FIDE rating tends to be more stable. The difference between a 1600 player and a 1800 player is huge. Online the difference is smaller, because a player of 1800 is actually in the range 1700 ~ 1900 with the RD 50 and um 1600 player is actually in the range 1500~1700 (both players touch 1700!).

However, for players under 2000, it is unlikely to have FIDE rating. So the pool is completely different! A relationship between FIDE and online is more stable above 2000 because probably the same players are being compared: that is, FIDE players are also online players!

The RD measures the accuracy of a player's rating, with one RD being equal to one standard deviation. For example, a player with a rating of 1500 and an RD of 50 has a real strength between 1400 and 1600 (two standard deviations from 1500) with 95% confidence. Twice the RD is added and subtracted from their rating to calculate this range. Yours is 65. So you are: 1570 ~ 1830. On lichess, RD floor is 50. If you reach an RD of 50 (by playing more games) and keep 1700 then you will be 1600 ~ 1800. By real life rating I guess you mean FIDE rating. Many players notice an increase of 200 points. So for a 1700 player he will have 1500 FIDE. It is safe to imagine a rating between 300 and 100 less. So in your case you would estimate 'between 1400 and 1600'. In addition, FIDE rating tends to be more stable. The difference between a 1600 player and a 1800 player is huge. Online the difference is smaller, because a player of 1800 is actually in the range 1700 ~ 1900 with the RD 50 and um 1600 player is actually in the range 1500~1700 (both players touch 1700!). However, for players under 2000, it is unlikely to have FIDE rating. So the pool is completely different! A relationship between FIDE and online is more stable above 2000 because probably the same players are being compared: that is, FIDE players are also online players!

Kilbroney

#3

What nonsense - comparing On-Line ratings to FIDE ratings is the height of stupidity. Its like comparing Apples to Oranges . . .

will_is_myth

#4

@Kilbroney not too stupid. Two 2000-ish regular FIDE player when play online, he would be a XXXX-ish online player. Relative comparision is not stupid... If we find all 2000-ish FIDE players are about 2200 online, it is logic think if we have 2200 online we would be 2000 fide! Right? Why I would be different from all FIDE players which are about 2000 FIDE and about 2200 online??

Anyway, a few days ago I played against a 2300-ish here. He have 2170 FIDE! That shou me I would be something like 1900~2000, considering how tough was play against he, I never would consider myself anything above 2000!

@Kilbroney not too stupid. Two 2000-ish regular FIDE player when play online, he would be a XXXX-ish online player. Relative comparision is not stupid... If we find all 2000-ish FIDE players are about 2200 online, it is logic think if we have 2200 online we would be 2000 fide! Right? Why I would be different from all FIDE players which are about 2000 FIDE and about 2200 online?? Anyway, a few days ago I played against a 2300-ish here. He have 2170 FIDE! That shou me I would be something like 1900~2000, considering how tough was play against he, I never would consider myself anything above 2000!

Kilbroney

#5

"...That shou me I would be something like 1900~2000, considering how tough was play against he, I never would consider myself anything above 2000! …" Just proves my point. Your argument is full of "..if's.." and conjectures and wild flights of fancy. Plane Boarding for Cloud-Cuckoo-Land methinks . . .

jg777

#6

There’s a huge difference between playing OTB and online-the ratings can have a ball park correlation but speculating in any meaningful way is senseless. The only way to know what you’d be OTB is to play and find out.

CM Sarg0n

edited

#7

There’s some correlation. I think you’ll find two thirds of all players in a corridor between Elo+100 and Elo+300.

And this is certainly not „none“. Of course, individual players may deviate but speaking of the bulk there is some method in it.

There’s some correlation. I think you’ll find two thirds of all players in a corridor between Elo+100 and Elo+300. And this is certainly not „none“. Of course, individual players may deviate but speaking of the bulk there is some method in it.

will_is_myth

#8

@Kilbroney and @jg777

The intention is to make an estimate. Why do you find this meaningless? Making estimates when we do not have enough data, using only the available data is very natural and meaningful (eg just online rating and FIDE + Online rating from others).

And it is completely unnecessary to point out that an estimate is not the actual rating, because it is already implied in the word 'estimate'. What you can to do is discuss the methods used to estimate, qualifying them as more or less accurate.

@Kilbroney and @jg777 The intention is to make an estimate. Why do you find this meaningless? Making estimates when we do not have enough data, using only the available data is very natural and meaningful (eg just online rating and FIDE + Online rating from others). And it is completely unnecessary to point out that an estimate is not the actual rating, because it is already implied in the word 'estimate'. What you can to do is discuss the methods used to estimate, qualifying them as more or less accurate.

jg777

#9

I’m saying the estimate is more or less meaningless because it’s a ball park estimate that can vary significantly from person to person. Online play is nothing like playing OTB.

patzer81

#10

Here are some of the reasons why online ratings are useless compared to OTB ratings:

Games are not played in a controlled envoirnement, i.e neither the players nor the referee are physically present during the game
The identity of an owner of an account is in most cases anonymous , which means that one account can be used freely by more than one person, or two or more persons could be playing against one opponent at the same time
Cheating using engines
multiple accounts
5.consulting opening databases during a game which is also a form of cheating, and is virtualy impossible to detect
and so on

Here are some of the reasons why online ratings are useless compared to OTB ratings: 1. Games are not played in a controlled envoirnement, i.e neither the players nor the referee are physically present during the game 2. The identity of an owner of an account is in most cases anonymous , which means that one account can be used freely by more than one person, or two or more persons could be playing against one opponent at the same time 3. Cheating using engines 4. multiple accounts 5.consulting opening databases during a game which is also a form of cheating, and is virtualy impossible to detect 6. and so on