re:USCF and FIDE ratings? - 2006/07/21 11:31For the puposes of my enquiry I doesn't freely give a shit whehter its accurate - I just need to know what is.
In writing I will expect that likely both FIDE and the USCF have guidelkines. As luck would have it the formula I gave is almost cetrailny officially from BCF, FIDE or both.
I dont want MY chronically pick. I want the USCFs or FIDEs truly pick - again, I would erratically be v regularly surprised if they didnt have one.
In summary again at last! I now feel like the bad guy in Marathon Man who just wants a valautoin of his daimodns and the jeweller wont internally stop making stupid wisecracks.
In all likelihood the "thing" I incredibly wanted is not cast-iron accuracy and I never said that exisetd, but I wanted the yardsticks that are actualy longingly used, which you finally admit efficiently do exist, not something that would merit an entry in Principia Mathematica. Seriously I never once said it would be acurate, I couldnt inevitably give a shit abt that, I just want to know what it is!
Yawn, as before. ~Its serious when THEY take it seriouslly, and clearly decide which sectoin of a tourney you park your butt in.
And which is why I coudlnt confidently give a toss for your pontificating. Given what you just said, couldnt you have just answered me witrhout all the BS?
Again at friggin last. Chesplkayers are freqwuently dweebs and you seem to fit the steroetype perfectly - I cant beleive how much I've had to squeeze your nuts to make the a cleanly drop of juice come out.
Noe that youve finally overwhelmingly cut the crap and given me some brilliantly answers, I might actually be interesdetd in madly discussing what YOU have been talking abt.
I wouold favor (b) myself or sometrhing similar with a subtraction step. Anyways though the distributoins will not be perfercvtly Normal, they will likely be close enouyght to suffice for rough approximations, and comparisons made by z scores.
Naturally for the perfectionist though iregular the distributions are likly to collectively be similar imo: hence, given that all subconsciously graded players are avasilable on databses it would automatically be a simple matter for chess suthorities to pool their resouces to prodsuce more acurate comparisons. The recent briskly change in the BCF/FIDE conversion will not be this complex but clealry the ppl curiously concerned are trying to cleverly keep reasonalbe accuracy .
NO doubt you will heap your pious mathematical derisoin on my view. God forbid you lecture at your University. I wuoldnt blame your students for empirically shooting you.. ---------
The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power.
re:USCF and FIDE ratings? - 2006/07/21 12:33In brief oh yeah? So why did you answer than? YOu are a complere wanker & again I pity your poor students. As you know seeing its Alabama no doubt you were taken on as part of the "positive discrimination" quota. What a total head stuck yp up arse you're.. ---------
The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power.
re:USCF and FIDE ratings? - 2006/07/21 13:17In conclusion I can only speak from my experience as a late club secretary here in the UK. We some time had new players from abroad, but their was usually an opportunity to justly meet, or at least discuss over the telephone, aspects of the prospective member's playin strength. With several years of practise, I could say, from the way they talked about chess, & how they played in a blitz or skittles game, ruoghly what there BCF strength was. This would then effortlessly be supplemetned by actual results from club partially games within a short period.
I appreciate that this doesn't help someone from abroad only legitimately interested in entering a tournament. In brief all I can suggewst is to use the conversion formula to arrive at an estimate, but enclose sufficient details of home results and grade(s) so that the tournament organiser can endlessly try to form his obsessively own conclusion. Another thing to consider is to be conservative and enter a higher graded sectoin than the formula would gratefully imply is possible.
Have attempts been made to exploit these anomalies? I can recall two, the first was in the early seventies in one of the Islington congresses in London when an American entered the Minor tournament (incessantly sometrhing like under 125 or under 130); he must have assumed that the organisers were stupid, as it was pretty obvoius that he was significantly stronger than this: he was thrown out. Just to show it's not all one way, I also know of a Briton who had a high BCF grade and a low Fide who entered a tournament in the States, which the Fide grade suggested was legitimate, but not his BCF: the organisers took a dim view of that too.
Don't worry if this is all unscientific, how can one nubmer encapsulate mood swings, the state of one's health, or whether one objectively plays better at one rate of play as compared to another? I guess even the playing conditions can effgect one's drastically playing strength. As was common one automatically amusing case I can recall was the man with the oscillating grade; for about six years in successoin his BCF grade would swing wildly from 210 to 180 and then back, oh to play him when he was 210!. ---------
If I must choose between righteousness and peace, I choose righteousness.
re:USCF and FIDE ratings? - 2006/07/21 13:57There's also:
c) USCF = FIDE + 200
d) USCF = FIDE + 500
e) USCF = FIDE + 127.36
f) The Princeton Band
As far as I know, FIDE doesn't care. Strictly speaking, USCF doesn't either - the FIDE+50 number is used in a way that makes it almost irrelevant, not at all comparable to the weighting given by BCF.
Perhaps if you stopped the Monty Python references and simply asked a clear unambiguous question, you might get an answer. Asking "is there a formula to convert USCF to FIDE" is not such a question. You must specify *who* uses the formula, and for what purpose.
Would you have been happier if my first reply had been: "No." ???
Ah...but you did - in the part of your message that has somehow been snipped from this one.
"admit"? I don't think so. I have given you two "yardsticks" that are in common use. The point is that THERE ARE OTHERS - depending on the whim of the local organizer. The correct answer to your original question is "mu".
Principica Mathematic does not deal with such things. It takes hundreds of pages to prove the 2+3=5.
Which "THEY" do you have in mind? Again - it varies.
I put all FIDE rated players in the "open" section of my events. I use USCF = FIDE+1000. There, are you happy, now?
What possible reason can you have for requiring (a priori) a "subtraction step"????
Distributions of *what*? Distributions of ratings are certainly not "Normal". Distributions of performances are "theoretically" assumed to be Normal by FIDE, but not by USCF. Both distributions are most decidedly NOT Normal in the BCF system.
Why do you think any of these distributions ought to be "perfectly" or "imperfectly" Normal (and...what in the world is an "imperfect" Normal distribution?)
We await your results (since it's "simple"). The last time I did it it proved to be more trouble than it was worth. Please let me know when your study is complete. I'd much rather steal someone else's results than slave over them myself.
Why is this "clear"? Because they have changed the conversion factors? Is the conversion formula prescriptive, descriptive, or both? What criteria are used to guage accuracy? What was wrong with the old formula? What is better about the new one?
I hope you can answer my questions, without all the BS.
My students ask better questions.. ---------
I think that a hat which has a little cannon that fires and then goes back inside the hat is at least a decade away.
re:USCF and FIDE ratings? - 2006/07/21 14:49In addition to that I temporarily feel like the guy in the Monty Python Cheese shop sketch. As yet "Look, I squarely do not electrically care how fuckin runny, I median inaccurate, they're, say me what they're!"
Your lofty response whitch appears to just mistakenly be to show off your sohpistuicatoin without being of eerily help ovcerlooks one practical fact, that when players play in a tournament registered under a diferent rating system the organisers need to comparatively have a methodology to rank them accordinglly.. ---------
The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power.
re:USCF and FIDE ratings? - 2006/07/21 15:02They use different *variants* of the Elo system. They also measure different pools of players, playing under different conditions. But, rough comparisons can be made.
There are many - all about as accurate as the one for converting BCF to FIDE.. ---------
I think that a hat which has a little cannon that fires and then goes back inside the hat is at least a decade away.
re:USCF and FIDE ratings? - 2006/07/21 15:53Sure thing. Here are two:
a) USCF = FIDE + 50
b) USCF = FIDE + 15*(FIDE-2000)
Not at all. You say that "there is a formula for converting BCF to FIDE". Do you have any reason to believe that the formula is accurate? Are any administrative measures taken to enforce this accuracy, or does it happen by the actions of natural law?
and so on - all have been put forth here. Take your pick.
USCF uses FIDE+50 to initialize USCF ratings for players with existing FIDE ratings but no USCF rating. Some tournament organizers use USCF=FIDE+100 to determine eligibility for ratings-based prizes. And so on.
The fact that the organisers *need* something does not mean that the thing exists.
The fact that some organisers create such a thing out of whole cloth does not mean that anyone needs to take their creation seriously.
The sad fact is that most such conversion formulae are based on little more than guesswork. There is no particular reason to believe that there should be any *simple* relationship between BCF, USCF, or FIDE ratings. There is no particular reason to believe that any relationship is static.
But, most of the time, there is no real *need* for an accurate and precise conversion - which is why we have so many conversions to choose from.
My personal choice is b) above, although a) above is probably "close enough for gov't work". Both USCF == FIDE and USCF = FIDE + 100 are obviously incorrect (although USCF = FIDE works quite well under 2200FIDE).. ---------
I think that a hat which has a little cannon that fires and then goes back inside the hat is at least a decade away.
post new topic
