On Apr 7, 5:01 pm, J=FCrgen R. <jurg...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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
|
