On Mar 31, 9:36 am, The Historian wrote:
On Mar 31, 8:44 am, samsloan wrote:



On Mar 31, 7:45 am, "Chess One" wrote:

"KennethSloan" wrote in message
What is true is that 2300 FIDE does not equal 2400 USCF.

No Ken. That again is not information, its contradiction which /witholds/
information - which is sometimes denial, and from whatyouhave written so
far, indistinguishable from denial.

What did 2300+ elo equate with in USCF ratings in 1985? If you don't know,
its okay to shut up.

PI

Phil Innes, you have no idea to whom you are addressing.

Ken Sloan is THE AUTHORITY on this particular subject. He has done a
specific and detailed analysis comparing USCF Ratings to FIDE Ratings.
Nobody knows more about this subject than Ken Sloan.

And you, Mr. Innes, are an idiot.

Sam Sloan

YES! YES! YES!

Here is one of several charts comparing USCF Ratings to FIDE Ratings.

http://math.bu.edu/people/mg/ratings/uscf_fide.jpg

As you will see, a majority of the red crosses are below the green
diagonal line. This means that most players with both a USCF Rating
and a FIDE Rating have a higher FIDE Rating.

However, at the upper right corner of the chart mapping the ratings of
the top grandmasters, in those cases the USCF rating is higher.

This is the source of the myth that USCF Ratings are higher than FIDE
Ratings.

Also, the extreme cases, where there is a big difference between the
USCF Rating and the FIDE Rating, it is usually that the FIDE Rating is
much higher.

Here is one example: John Warlick of the US Virgin Islands has a USCF
Rating of 1584.

http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12403829

However, his last published FIDE Rating is 2205.

(Mike Nolan should note this on the USCF Ratings website.)

Sam Sloan

"samsloan" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
On Mar 31, 9:36 am, The Historian wrote:
On Mar 31, 8:44 am, samsloan wrote:



Here is one of several charts comparing USCF Ratings to FIDE Ratings.

http://math.bu.edu/people/mg/ratings/uscf_fide.jpg

As you will see, a majority of the red crosses are below the green
diagonal line. This means that most players with both a USCF Rating
and a FIDE Rating have a higher FIDE Rating.

However, at the upper right corner of the chart mapping the ratings of
the top grandmasters, in those cases the USCF rating is higher.

This is the source of the myth that USCF Ratings are higher than FIDE
Ratings.

[...]

Sam Sloan

No wonder you flunked out of college.

As usual, your observation is wrong. You cannot see
that the majority of the points are below the line, because
it isn't so. The green line is drawn in such a way that
roughly as many points are above as there are below.

The green line is not the 'diagonal' line. It is the graph
of the conversion function. The conversion adds points to
the FIDE rating to get a comparable USCF rating.
The correction is at most 50 points and is applied
to FIDE ratings above 2200.

On Apr 7, 5:01 pm, Jürgen R. wrote:


As usual, your observation is wrong. You cannot see
that the majority of the points are below the line, because
it isn't so. The green line is drawn in such a way that
roughly as many points are above as there are below.

The green line is not the 'diagonal' line. It is the graph
of the conversion function. The conversion adds points to
the FIDE rating to get a comparable USCF rating.
The correction is at most 50 points and is applied
to FIDE ratings above 2200.


The link I clicked on rendered a graph so tiny
that I could not make out diddledy-squat. It
appeared that there was some sort of skewing,
but the darned labels were too small for me to
read!

It is my understanding that the relation
between FIDE ratings and USCF ratings may
have fluctuated over time, so it would be
unwise to leap to any conclusions regarding
say, the peak rating of Taylor Kingston way
back in the 1980s, based on such a graph.

I was surprised to read -- in Chess Lies
magazine, many years ago -- that the
common belief that FIDE ratings were
"normally" higher was mistaken; indeed, at
the time of that article this mainly applied to
GMs, and in fact when you got down to the
Expert level, there was a reversal. The
entry policies of some of the big-money
tourneys were, therefore, out of tune with
reality.


-- help bot

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 20:26:38 -0700 (PDT), help bot
wrote:

The link I clicked on rendered a graph so tiny
that I could not make out diddledy-squat. It
appeared that there was some sort of skewing,
but the darned labels were too small for me to
read!


Bot, bot, bot, bot, bot.....

Just zoom in on the bloody thing. It's not that hard.

Tony

On Apr 8, 3:17 am, Tony M wrote:

The link I clicked on rendered a graph so tiny
that I could not make out diddledy-squat. It
appeared that there was some sort of skewing,
but the darned labels were too small for me to
read!

Bot, bot, bot, bot, bot.....

Just zoom in on the bloody thing. It's not that hard.


I don't think you understand; this happens, not
necessarily because the resolution is poor, but
rather, because I can't see (anymore).

My local Wal-mart has a chart which estimates
which level of magnification you probably need,
based on age. I find that even if I buy the super-
power reading glasses, for 85-year-old geezers,
it's barely enough.

But you're right-- I probably could have zoomed
in on just a portion of the screen, making it much
larger, if blurred. I figured why not just wait, as
Mr. Sloan's multitudinous critics would surely
jump at the chance to correct him, "if" he was
interpreting the chart wrong. Just kick back and
let those whose eyes actually work explain the
data. Hey, maybe if I were to buy one of those
new, big-screen HDTVs, with a PC input... .


-- help bot

On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 02:53:56 -0700 (PDT), help bot
wrote:

On Apr 8, 3:17 am, Tony M wrote:

The link I clicked on rendered a graph so tiny
that I could not make out diddledy-squat. It
appeared that there was some sort of skewing,
but the darned labels were too small for me to
read!

Bot, bot, bot, bot, bot.....

Just zoom in on the bloody thing. It's not that hard.


I don't think you understand; this happens, not
necessarily because the resolution is poor, but
rather, because I can't see (anymore).


I apologize, robotic one. I forgot about your vision problems. Carry
on.

Tony

I don't know what the conversion formula is, but through about 2300 it
looks very close to FIDE rating = USCF rating, and above that the
differences don't even seem to be terribly large until about 2600,
around which the number of data points (of course) is limited.