|
|
|
Topic: QA's ELO -> Real ELO
| |
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
Thanks for your contribution Odie_Spud; I should probably give up on this search for a comparison since everyone agrees that there is none. Thanks anyway. 
|
|
|
The advantages correspondence chess has over OTB which you mention, work both ways. Theoretically, we all play a better game if we have the time and can peek in a book.
The Elo system is set up differently though, and I do believe that the system QA uses inflates ratings slightly over time:
a) There is no Elo under 1100 points, which is by definition: knowing all the rules of chess. In QA, some members have lost points to below that level. That means somebody else will have those in their pocket somewhere.
b) Win your first game on QA, and you have 1500p already (in Elo terms: weak club player). Whether your rating will rise of fall later on, a lot has been added to the 'economy' for others to benefit from.
c) I recently claimed a game against an 1100p player who had kept me waiting 28 days. Even though my rating was much more than 400 points greater, it still gave me two points. Encouraging, but it's two more in the system. And we have a lot of members.
| In 1991, I played for the lowest team of a club. My Elo was estimated at 1650. I am now winning the type of games I used to lose then, so I'm slightly better now, maybe around 1700? My QA rating is 1878 after 64 games: about 10% higher. Maybe that's a starting estimate to consider? |
|
|
|
The fact that there's a rating inflation here on QA has nothing to do with the system but with the fact that one part of the players here is except from the calculation . I am talking of the established players not losing any points if playing against newbies with a provisional rating. However the non established ones are rated if winning the game. When starting playing here on QA I played the actual No 2 in the rating list and I have been told that he only can afford to play me because he wouldn't lose an<y points if losing what he did. My rating has been increased considerably but there was no effect on his'. It's a good idea not to rate those games between an established player and a newbie but the newbie shouldn't be rated either. Otherwise you'll get exactly what's happening here: over the time there's an unstoppable rating inflation with illusionary ratings on the top. And that's not the system but the way the system is applied.
|
|
|
True ... but surely there is deflation too when people leave the site!
|
|
|
Having said that accurate conversion also depends if you play in the style of a 'correspondence player' and genuinely meditate upon/research your moves or if you just play quickly /relatively quickly.
|
| Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next |
|
|
|
