PDA

View Full Version : Software rating vs USCF rating



AWB9999
28-12-2007, 01:09 PM
I'm beginning to get the idea that ratings in software are inflated over what they would be "in the real world". I have "Chessmaster: Grandmaster Edition", and my rating seems to be about 100 to 200 points higher than what I suspect my USCF rating would be, if I actually joined and went to tournaments. (I was a member, many years ago.) So... does anybody have a USCF rating that's the same as their software rating? ...Different?

Kevin Bonham
28-12-2007, 01:32 PM
Most posters here are Australian so won't have USCF ratings at all*, but the same sort of point will still apply. The Chessmaster series often overrates itself (this has been a consistent pattern with several different editions of Chessmaster) and hence it is likely to also overrate its opponents. This was discussed quite a bit (just ignore the dummyspit from qpawn, or else laugh at it :D ) on this thread here (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=151451).

Another issue with computer ratings is that it is often possible to tweak them if the computer has a sliding scale of opponents. For instance if I play Fritz and set it on a level of about 1700 I will beat it most of the time and get a rating around my actual. But if I set it on about 1700 half the time and about 2700 half the time, I will score around 50% (since I will win nearly always on 1700 and lose nearly always on 2700), and it will think that since I have 50% against opponents of average rating 2200, therefore I am 2200.

* Not sure what the ACF-USCF parity situation is like these days. There was a time when 2000 USCF was only worth about 1750-1800 ACF but I'm unsure if that is still the case with the uplifts in the ACF system.

Spiny Norman
28-12-2007, 01:39 PM
I have Chessmaster 8000. After doing the tests where it estimates my rating across 10 categories of tests (about 80 or 100 positions in total), it tells me that my average rating is 1563. In the latest ACF list I am 1518 (and have been as high as 1566). So for me at least, it seems reasonably accurate.

CameronD
28-12-2007, 01:54 PM
Fics and chessmaster has me overrated by 400 points (I only use standard time controls). I still think there's a 200 points difference between ACF and USCF ratings at sub 2000.

Interestingly, I've just looked at the major entries for the championship, and their FIDE ratings are 200 above ACF generally. The uplifts were to keep the top end in line, but I think that there's still a significant difference at below 2000 ACF with FIDE and USCF.

An analysis between the different ratings would be interesting. Fics did this, but I cant find it. (comparing Fics with other federations)

Miguel
28-12-2007, 04:14 PM
Steve Lopez discusses software ratings here (http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3030). Basically, different pools of players means different ratings. In any case, it's really only the rating difference between players that's important (*), not the absolute values. However, you might be able to guesstimate your expected USCF rating if you have a friend who has both an accurate USCF rating and an accurate Chessmaster rating. In which case your expected rating would be:

Your USCF rating = Friend's USCF rating - Friend's Chessmaster rating + Your Chessmaster rating

There's probably a large error margin associated with this estimate though (300 points?). Of course, the best way to get a USCF rating is to play in USCF rated tournaments! :D

(*) Important in a statistical sense. I'm not talking about bragging rights :P

Wheredidhego
05-01-2008, 11:13 PM
Fics and chessmaster has me overrated by 400 points (I only use standard time controls). I still think there's a 200 points difference between ACF and USCF ratings at sub 2000.

Interestingly, I've just looked at the major entries for the championship, and their FIDE ratings are 200 above ACF generally. The uplifts were to keep the top end in line, but I think that there's still a significant difference at below 2000 ACF with FIDE and USCF.

An analysis between the different ratings would be interesting. Fics did this, but I cant find it. (comparing Fics with other federations)
Ratings mean nothing! The only rating I am interested in is the next move on a chess board. That is what a rating is, the ability to make good moves, to know what move to play, and to make the best move.

Kevin Bonham
09-01-2008, 09:57 PM
Curiously, Fritz11 rates itself in "unleashed" mode at 3531 on my computer when I play blitz against it. This is not confined to Fritz11; Fritz6 also rates itself well over 3400 on this computer, but only in the 2600s on my seven-year-old HP. (Do others get Fritz rating itself at 3400+ or is this just me?)

After losing eight games to it in unleashed mode (only one of which was within a million miles of a draw) and drawing one game to it on 1515 rating, it now rates me at a fairly respectable 2809. :lol:

frogmogdog
09-01-2008, 11:14 PM
hey kevin, i just tried your super method of improvement.

0/3 against fritz 8 (rated 3299 on my computer) combined with 2.5/3 (when rated 1680) earnt me a rating of 2430 and the awesome title of "chess player".

i then lost one more game against it at 3299 and this boosted my rating to over 2500. yoo hoo! solo watch out.

Aaron Guthrie
10-01-2008, 08:56 AM
Curiously, Fritz11 rates itself in "unleashed" mode at 3531 on my computer when I play blitz against it. This is not confined to Fritz11; Fritz6 also rates itself well over 3400 on this computer, but only in the 2600s on my seven-year-old HP. (Do others get Fritz rating itself at 3400+ or is this just me?)Maybe it had spent some time playing (rated) games against Chessmaster.