|
|
|
Topic: Compare QA ratings with USCF ratings?
| |
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
Note that you didn't play too many games, and also who you played influences your rating. To have a more or less accurate rating you should play a wide variety of opponents with a wide variety of ratings.
Miguel
|
|
|
You can conduct a questionaire survey on this, Miguel. Ask active QA members those are also active OTB officially for their ratings. If we have sufficient samples and such relationship exists, superdad should compile them and get his conversion factor.
|
|
|
I think that another thing that influences ratings is number of simultaneous games. I know of at least one member in good standing that has at least 300 simultaneous games. He admits to playing them blitz style. I like to have only a few games going at a time so I can spend time analyzing positions (sometimes it doesn't do me any good anyways!). A "few and slow" player in the midst of a bunch of blitz players ought to have a higher relative rating just because of the analysis advantage. Put them in the same room with a chess clock and the dynamic changes. Just some thoughts. I like Puffer's idea -- a survey.
|
|
|
Ratings are a relative indication of a player's performance within a given pool; no one system is the standard by which the others should be measured.
Correspondence chess requires a higher committment, and attracts fewer scholastic players, both of which will wean out the weakest group and push the average up.
My USCF correspondence is lower than my QA rating, but both are in the same class.
|
| Previous 1 2 |
|
|
|
