@DoTheMath, @thibault: it is possible to convert km into miles, as there is a conversion factor. Unfortunately, there's no conversion factor between rating systems. I don't find the km-vs-miles thing particularly accurate or appropriate, in this case. And yes, a km is smaller (shorter) than a mile. It's a fact.
@picchiolu
It's certainly not an analogy that holds on every possible point of comparison, but I think it's apt with respect to the point being made (that you should be careful about comparing numbers just because they roughly share the same scale; they could be measuring different things with the same units, the same things with different units, or different things with different units).
In some of those cases (measuring the same things with different units, as is the case with kilometers and miles), you might have a conversion factor, but then the point is still clear that you can't just compare the raw numbers.
With chess ratings, for the reasons pointed out earlier by @DoTheMath, comparisons are even harder, because you're actually measuring different things altogether (strength relative to different sets of players) and sometime on a different scale (ratings centered around a different mean).
That is why your point is also correct, that there's no simple or generally applicable conversion factor either.
Another analogy could be formulated that holds on more points of comparison (maybe involving the price of similar but different goods in different economies with different currencies), but I doubt it would be as pithy or memorable :)
It's certainly not an analogy that holds on every possible point of comparison, but I think it's apt with respect to the point being made (that you should be careful about comparing numbers just because they roughly share the same scale; they could be measuring different things with the same units, the same things with different units, or different things with different units).
In some of those cases (measuring the same things with different units, as is the case with kilometers and miles), you might have a conversion factor, but then the point is still clear that you can't just compare the raw numbers.
With chess ratings, for the reasons pointed out earlier by @DoTheMath, comparisons are even harder, because you're actually measuring different things altogether (strength relative to different sets of players) and sometime on a different scale (ratings centered around a different mean).
That is why your point is also correct, that there's no simple or generally applicable conversion factor either.
Another analogy could be formulated that holds on more points of comparison (maybe involving the price of similar but different goods in different economies with different currencies), but I doubt it would be as pithy or memorable :)
It's like comparing National Ratings to Elo.
For example, in Turkey, the more your rating increases, harder it gets. K=30 <1299
K=25 < 1599 and goes on like that. It's not comparable to Elo but If you play normal tournaments, National Rating will be more close to your strength since there are many National rated but not Elo rated tournaments.
For example, in Turkey, the more your rating increases, harder it gets. K=30 <1299
K=25 < 1599 and goes on like that. It's not comparable to Elo but If you play normal tournaments, National Rating will be more close to your strength since there are many National rated but not Elo rated tournaments.
Ratings are not designed to be absolute measurements. They are relative values that only make sense within the context of the pool of players being rated. Comparing a rating in one pool of players to a rating in a different pool of players is outside of the scope of the mathematical system and a meaningless exercise. Some rough correlations can be drawn up, but they are mostly meaningless.
Any comparison between a rating in one pool of players to a rating in another pool of players demonstrates a total misunderstanding of what ratings are even meant to do and can be ignored.
Any comparison between a rating in one pool of players to a rating in another pool of players demonstrates a total misunderstanding of what ratings are even meant to do and can be ignored.
There is nothing to stop the organizers from adjusting their rating system so as to move the average ratings closer to a world recognized system like the FIDE rating system. Indeed if you added a million points to each player then your local rating system would only be usefully locally. However if your rating formula is close to the FIDE system then your local sytem does have some meaning nonlocally.
i have 1700 elo and on lichess Blitz i have 1979. explain this. also in bullet 1870. i m not nearly Close these numbers in real Life. why so?
Re #15: your rating is mathematically designed to be useful ONLY locally. It is mathematically outside of the scope of the rating system to be "useful non-locally," despite any similarity in range.
@DunnoItAll
I applaud your attempts to educate people, but you're contending against a well-ingrained folk belief that ratings are objective indicators of playing ability.
As long as people continue to invoke their "real life" or "real" ratings, the magical belief in a universal measurement of one's chess skill (i.e., FIDE) will remain in the chess community. Rational attempts to discuss rating pools and how they're only accurate to the players and conditions within each pool system will fall on deaf ears.
I call it Chess Platonism.
I applaud your attempts to educate people, but you're contending against a well-ingrained folk belief that ratings are objective indicators of playing ability.
As long as people continue to invoke their "real life" or "real" ratings, the magical belief in a universal measurement of one's chess skill (i.e., FIDE) will remain in the chess community. Rational attempts to discuss rating pools and how they're only accurate to the players and conditions within each pool system will fall on deaf ears.
I call it Chess Platonism.
Most of us are amateurs. We are here for the love of the game.
The rating system works well enough for 99% of the players.
Keep on playing , keep on studying and the numbers will increase on their own , no matter which rating system is followed!!
The rating system works well enough for 99% of the players.
Keep on playing , keep on studying and the numbers will increase on their own , no matter which rating system is followed!!
Re #18:
Yeah, but I have to do my part, ineffective as it may be.
:/
Yeah, but I have to do my part, ineffective as it may be.
:/
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.