That wouldn’t be a good idea. The USCF rating system does what it’s supposed to do. It measures a wide variety of players in the United States including a relatively large number of scholastic players. The ratings formula’s are periodically adjusted based on analysis. It should be noted that the ‘Elo’ system was funded, developed and implemented by the USCF and the USCF currently uses a more nuanced system developed by Mark Glickman. When it comes to ratings systems, the U.S. is the leader.
US Rating system is ridiculous. Everyone knows that. It’s a bit of long running joke all around the world. You should chop at least one hundred to one hundred fifty points of each member. Virtually everyone outside the US knows this.
FIDE rating snobs should really keep quiet. Keep in mind this rating is provisional. Stupid FIDE doesn’t even give provisional ratings, rates once a month & you have to pay to get titles (FIDE Master for instance), screw FIDE’s corrupt snobbery, the USCF might not be perfect but its better than FIDE & believe me, I’m not one to defend American institutions generally.
USCF ratings are a tad ridiculously high and have been for a long time. Not a serious rating system. I agree with some of the comments above, everyone on the planet knows this. They even rate Kamsky as being over 2800…so don’t give us that “provisional” garbage of an argument.
Kamsky’s Fide rating is 2741, not so much different than his USCF rating. He is currently the #2 player in the U.S., right behind Nakamura. Nakamura is #9 in the Fide rating list and Kamsky is #16. #1 and #2 U.S. players match on both lists. The scale seems to get people flustered. As long as it’s accurate and well thought out, why should it matter? The statistical formulas and discussions of the U.S. rating system can be downloaded and seem quite ‘serious’ to me.
I play in the US and know plenty of players with higher FIDE ratings than USCF. More in the reverse but its absurd to say FIDE is always higher. USCF accommodates more scholastic players so their rating system is more volatile whereas FIDE ratings shift more slowly. Seems to me a lot of young players are underrated by FIDE & many old players are overrated by FIDE as it doesn’t adapt as quickly (I’ve played quite a few players who are 2000+ or high 1900’s in FIDE & low 1900’s or on a 1900 floor USCF).
I don’t know who Mr Anonymous is, but FIDE charges a minimum of $60 USD to rate an event, USCF charges a minimum of $3 USD. That’s why I rate my events through USCF and not FIDE. They both do a good job, but I’ll stick with the one that is 10 times cheaper. -Nate
The USCF should abandon their rating system to follow FIDE.
Why USCF has a different rating system? It’s a nonsense!
That wouldn’t be a good idea. The USCF rating system does what it’s supposed to do. It measures a wide variety of players in the United States including a relatively large number of scholastic players. The ratings formula’s are periodically adjusted based on analysis.
It should be noted that the ‘Elo’ system was funded, developed and implemented by the USCF and the USCF currently uses a more nuanced system developed by Mark Glickman. When it comes to ratings systems, the U.S. is the leader.
US Rating system is ridiculous. Everyone knows that. It’s a bit of long running joke all around the world. You should chop at least one hundred to one hundred fifty points of each member. Virtually everyone outside the US knows this.
FIDE rating snobs should really keep quiet. Keep in mind this rating is provisional. Stupid FIDE doesn’t even give provisional ratings, rates once a month & you have to pay to get titles (FIDE Master for instance), screw FIDE’s corrupt snobbery, the USCF might not be perfect but its better than FIDE & believe me, I’m not one to defend American institutions generally.
USCF ratings are a tad ridiculously high and have been for a long time. Not a serious rating system. I agree with some of the comments above, everyone on the planet knows this. They even rate Kamsky as being over 2800…so don’t give us that “provisional” garbage of an argument.
Kamsky’s Fide rating is 2741, not so much different than his USCF rating. He is currently the #2 player in the U.S., right behind Nakamura. Nakamura is #9 in the Fide rating list and Kamsky is #16. #1 and #2 U.S. players match on both lists.
The scale seems to get people flustered. As long as it’s accurate and well thought out, why should it matter? The statistical formulas and discussions of the U.S. rating system can be downloaded and seem quite ‘serious’ to me.
I play in the US and know plenty of players with higher FIDE ratings than USCF. More in the reverse but its absurd to say FIDE is always higher. USCF accommodates more scholastic players so their rating system is more volatile whereas FIDE ratings shift more slowly. Seems to me a lot of young players are underrated by FIDE & many old players are overrated by FIDE as it doesn’t adapt as quickly (I’ve played quite a few players who are 2000+ or high 1900’s in FIDE & low 1900’s or on a 1900 floor USCF).
I don’t know who Mr Anonymous is, but FIDE charges a minimum of $60 USD to rate an event, USCF charges a minimum of $3 USD. That’s why I rate my events through USCF and not FIDE. They both do a good job, but I’ll stick with the one that is 10 times cheaper.
-Nate