@mdinnerspace Why is classical rating blitz rating plus one?
The OP's formula states:
Blitz rating (x.38) + classical rating (x.48) + 187 = FIDE rating
The OP's research stipulates blitz ratings as +78 points (n) and classical ratings as + 169 ( which I gave as n+1) Of course "1" could be any positive number.
n+1 is a standard representation of a factor whereby n is a variable and n+1 is the same variable with an added value above n. I should have used a figure above the "1" such as 1^
Blitz rating (x.38) + classical rating (x.48) + 187 = FIDE rating
The OP's research stipulates blitz ratings as +78 points (n) and classical ratings as + 169 ( which I gave as n+1) Of course "1" could be any positive number.
n+1 is a standard representation of a factor whereby n is a variable and n+1 is the same variable with an added value above n. I should have used a figure above the "1" such as 1^
Not that it matters, @mdinnerspace , but all this time you've doing your calculations using the wrong numbers:
.38 is the coefficient associated with classical ratings
.48 is the coefficient associated with blitz ratings
Again, none of your calculations demonstrate anything anyway, but I thought I'd point that out.
.38 is the coefficient associated with classical ratings
.48 is the coefficient associated with blitz ratings
Again, none of your calculations demonstrate anything anyway, but I thought I'd point that out.
@mdinnerspace How old are you? What sort of mathematical training do you have?
I am a FIDE-rated player and have played a fair amount of games here so that my rating is perhaps accurately depicting my playing strength and i suppose I was in the sample you used to create your formula.
For the record: as i am writing this my Blitz rating is 2110, my classical rating is 2007 and my FIDE-rating is 1992.
(When i wrote the profile i was actually at 2005, which i rounded to 2000 because i didn't feel this makes much difference. In the time i am here i never bothered to correct it even though i was at one point at 2021 and at another at 1965. I am quite stable at around 2000 since a few years now so that i don't feel the information "2000" is very misleading.)
The reason my blitz rating is higher than my FIDE rating is simple: i am playing blitz a lot better than longer time controls because i suck at chess but i have quick reflexes. I can make mediocre moves very fast. In my club are several FIDE-masters with OTB-ratings of 2200+ (our first team plays third league in Germany) and i regularly win a fair share of games against all of them. Of course i am no match for any of them in long games.
But this does not have to be so and for some players this is quite the other way round: players who play very good chess, but are just too slow to effectively play blitz. You even see this in world-class chess: Grischuk, Nakamura and Caruana are fairly equal in classical time controls but Caruana is significantly weaker than the other two in blitz.
This is why i think that taking the blitz rating into account at all in your formula is arbitrary: for the overwhelming majority of us the FIDE-rating is only reflecting long time controls (~90-120m for 40 moves tournament games) because blitz tournaments are rarely FIDE-rated and even what is called "classical" here (10m/game and up) is regarded as near-blitz speed chess OTB.
krasnaya
For the record: as i am writing this my Blitz rating is 2110, my classical rating is 2007 and my FIDE-rating is 1992.
(When i wrote the profile i was actually at 2005, which i rounded to 2000 because i didn't feel this makes much difference. In the time i am here i never bothered to correct it even though i was at one point at 2021 and at another at 1965. I am quite stable at around 2000 since a few years now so that i don't feel the information "2000" is very misleading.)
The reason my blitz rating is higher than my FIDE rating is simple: i am playing blitz a lot better than longer time controls because i suck at chess but i have quick reflexes. I can make mediocre moves very fast. In my club are several FIDE-masters with OTB-ratings of 2200+ (our first team plays third league in Germany) and i regularly win a fair share of games against all of them. Of course i am no match for any of them in long games.
But this does not have to be so and for some players this is quite the other way round: players who play very good chess, but are just too slow to effectively play blitz. You even see this in world-class chess: Grischuk, Nakamura and Caruana are fairly equal in classical time controls but Caruana is significantly weaker than the other two in blitz.
This is why i think that taking the blitz rating into account at all in your formula is arbitrary: for the overwhelming majority of us the FIDE-rating is only reflecting long time controls (~90-120m for 40 moves tournament games) because blitz tournaments are rarely FIDE-rated and even what is called "classical" here (10m/game and up) is regarded as near-blitz speed chess OTB.
krasnaya
Good evaluation above.
The issue all along as I've interpreted the OP's topic is that a FIDE rating can be estimated for players having never played OTB based on their online rating. For many, the skills acquired on-line do not directly relate to OTB.
Their rating OTB, once established, may very well fall in +/- 100 points using the formula. Some here have suggested +/- 200 to be acceptable.(?) But what is the point in the exercise of downloading every game and using a weeks comp time to search profiles, only to base the estimate on voluntary FIDE ratings provided?
By Zeus, subtract 100 points from your blitz rating and be just as close. Players establish their blitz skills online, after 100's of games. To think there exists any correlation to a 1st time OTB rating after a single tournament is foolishness. The OTB skills take time to develop, it is highly likely the initial rating will be lower than an on-line rating, contrary to the OP's formula which points to a higher rating.
Indeed, blitz ratings are arbitrary. A far better sample is correspondence , where no assisted engines are allowed.
The issue all along as I've interpreted the OP's topic is that a FIDE rating can be estimated for players having never played OTB based on their online rating. For many, the skills acquired on-line do not directly relate to OTB.
Their rating OTB, once established, may very well fall in +/- 100 points using the formula. Some here have suggested +/- 200 to be acceptable.(?) But what is the point in the exercise of downloading every game and using a weeks comp time to search profiles, only to base the estimate on voluntary FIDE ratings provided?
By Zeus, subtract 100 points from your blitz rating and be just as close. Players establish their blitz skills online, after 100's of games. To think there exists any correlation to a 1st time OTB rating after a single tournament is foolishness. The OTB skills take time to develop, it is highly likely the initial rating will be lower than an on-line rating, contrary to the OP's formula which points to a higher rating.
Indeed, blitz ratings are arbitrary. A far better sample is correspondence , where no assisted engines are allowed.
@krasnaya
"For the record: as i am writing this my Blitz rating is 2110, my classical rating is 2007 and my FIDE-rating is 1992."
I am similar situation. Simply because I am far more experienced in blitz than long games or otb.
Some people benefit a lot from long time controls, others much less.
The blitz rating conversions create some giant estimates which are simply impossible for me.
"For the record: as i am writing this my Blitz rating is 2110, my classical rating is 2007 and my FIDE-rating is 1992."
I am similar situation. Simply because I am far more experienced in blitz than long games or otb.
Some people benefit a lot from long time controls, others much less.
The blitz rating conversions create some giant estimates which are simply impossible for me.
Too emphasize, my OTB , longer time controls in general surpasses my blitz skills. Good positions, panic mode when lesser time sets in. The other end of the spectrum.
The percentage of players that fall within a median, a slightly higher classical rating than blitz rating is quite meaningless. The "majority" may very well have a disparity of +/- 200 when comparing the two.
Imo, this simply explains why any "formula" can not make an estimate worth a hill of beans, for new players to OTB. How accurate is it after a OTB rating is established?
Accurate enough to qualify as falling within a "median" for possibly half of players, but what was the point of the original exercise if not to establish some accuracy?
Average classical and correspondence, subtract 100... voila ! Throw away blitz ratings. As good as any formula that required downloading every game and a weeks time to research every profile!
The percentage of players that fall within a median, a slightly higher classical rating than blitz rating is quite meaningless. The "majority" may very well have a disparity of +/- 200 when comparing the two.
Imo, this simply explains why any "formula" can not make an estimate worth a hill of beans, for new players to OTB. How accurate is it after a OTB rating is established?
Accurate enough to qualify as falling within a "median" for possibly half of players, but what was the point of the original exercise if not to establish some accuracy?
Average classical and correspondence, subtract 100... voila ! Throw away blitz ratings. As good as any formula that required downloading every game and a weeks time to research every profile!
@mdinnerspace Let me ask again. How old are you? What sort of mathematical training do you have?
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.