@greysensei said in #8:
> Not sure about blitz. But I recently played against a 12yo kid who had an 1182 USCF rating. He was around 1700 rapid on lichess. My USCF rating is 851 but only because I haven't played much - I think I'm probably around 1000 USCF, but I'm about 1500 rapid on lichess. There's a streamer CLSmith15 who is about 2000-2100 rapid on lichess. His USCF rating is 1539.
I bet you CLSmith15 actual USCF strength is a1700 or at least 1650. Actual.
From my personal experience, I truly believe most OTB chess ratings are much more localized than globalized ratings.
If you ever moved from your local club to join another local club you too would have experienced your rating increase or decrease depending on the type of rated players in those clubs. Image changing country and seeing your rating increase or decreasing dramatically.
Our chess rating originates only from the players we played against. Comparing ratings is like trying to compare personnel families. A family cannot be compared to another, because the facts are unknown. The only way to compare facts is to know the formula and have the same games reproduced by each rating formula. With a bogus tournament we can use the same bogus players and results to put the info into the formulas, so that we can then compare ratings.
If a rating scale is made, then categorizes can be created. You can then say you are in a chess category. I'm a category B player. I can remember back in school what a B grade was. It felt good. So knowing I'm in the B category, gives me that same feeling.
A rating number from a formula should only be for pairing purposes and to create categories. If a rating was so exact, a player would not need to do tournaments. The standings would remain the same, but there is always someone new in the group, which justifies to create a new tournament to create new ratings and new standings.
Saying things like 45, 500 or 4720 is not constructive, it gets boring.
All that disinformation lacks tack and later causes misinformation to the others reading for clarity.
