b_irie
14 ( +1 | -1 )

England Rating Does someone know how the English rating system differs from ELO? I've been told it's some simple calculation, but can't remember.

England Rating Does someone know how the English rating system differs from ELO? I've been told it's some simple calculation, but can't remember.

More: Chess Analysis

potus
7 ( +1 | -1 )

to convert BCF gradw to elo, you either add 600 and multiply by 8 or add 800 and multiply by 6, can't remember which

to convert BCF gradw to elo, you either add 600 and multiply by 8 or add 800 and multiply by 6, can't remember which

More: Play Chess Online Free

bonsai
37 ( +1 | -1 )

It used to be

1. multiply by 8

2. add 600

I.e. BCF 175 is/was approximately Elo 2000. However I believe something else has been suggested/introduced recently, what I've heard about it didn't make much sense to me though - the formula I've quoted above does seem to give a reasonable idea of playing strength - at least at my level plus or minus a couple of hundred elo points.

It used to be

1. multiply by 8

2. add 600

I.e. BCF 175 is/was approximately Elo 2000. However I believe something else has been suggested/introduced recently, what I've heard about it didn't make much sense to me though - the formula I've quoted above does seem to give a reasonable idea of playing strength - at least at my level plus or minus a couple of hundred elo points.

More: Chess Tutorial

blindio
82 ( +1 | -1 )

From the BCF diary 2004-5 Begin quote

Grading Conversions

BCF x 8 + 600 = Elo

(Elo - 600) / 8 = BCF

This applies to national ratings. It also applies to FIDE ratings greater than 2327. For FIDE ratings lower than this, and for CF grading purposes only, a different formula is used. (FIDE - 1250) / 5 = BCF.

End quote.

Now my BCF rating is at present a lowly 91. Which, according to the first formula that the book gives, equates to Elo 1328. Fair enough. I haven't a clue what the second formula is for, but it seems to mean that the BCF graders might decide that a FIDE rated player of, say, Elo 1705, if he comes to play here in the UK and asks for a BCF equivalent grading will be graded using the second formula and be given a grade of, well whaddya know, 91!

If anyone can explain this please do. I haven't a clue!

Chris

From the BCF diary 2004-5 Begin quote

Grading Conversions

BCF x 8 + 600 = Elo

(Elo - 600) / 8 = BCF

This applies to national ratings. It also applies to FIDE ratings greater than 2327. For FIDE ratings lower than this, and for CF grading purposes only, a different formula is used. (FIDE - 1250) / 5 = BCF.

End quote.

Now my BCF rating is at present a lowly 91. Which, according to the first formula that the book gives, equates to Elo 1328. Fair enough. I haven't a clue what the second formula is for, but it seems to mean that the BCF graders might decide that a FIDE rated player of, say, Elo 1705, if he comes to play here in the UK and asks for a BCF equivalent grading will be graded using the second formula and be given a grade of, well whaddya know, 91!

If anyone can explain this please do. I haven't a clue!

Chris

More: Multiplayer Chess

chrisp
57 ( +1 | -1 )

BCF Every since the rating system was centaralised in Uk a few years ago, a study was performed to compare the BCF ratings to ELO and FIDE ratings.

It was discovered that the relationship with the old formual only worked for certain rating ranges - hence they introduced a second formula for certain playing levels.

This means that the conversions follow the graph of grading comparisons at all levels.

I do agree however that things are now more confusing than they used to be.

Thanks

chrisp

BCF Every since the rating system was centaralised in Uk a few years ago, a study was performed to compare the BCF ratings to ELO and FIDE ratings.

It was discovered that the relationship with the old formual only worked for certain rating ranges - hence they introduced a second formula for certain playing levels.

This means that the conversions follow the graph of grading comparisons at all levels.

I do agree however that things are now more confusing than they used to be.

Thanks

chrisp

More: Internet Chess Club

bonsai
77 ( +1 | -1 )

Having played tournament chess in both England and Germany I do have the feeling that that new formula doesn't really convert playing strength very well - when I last played in England my BCF rating was around 160 and my DWZ was 1828 (=115.6?! the "old" conversion 154 makes more sense to me - I was more active in England in those days, so my BCF rating was probably lagging behind a bit). One problem of course is that until very recently there was no Elo below 2000 and particularly the lower Elo ratings were definitely inflated compared to higher Elo ratings (due to a rating only being handed out when you managed to get one above 2000, otherwise the results were "forgotten") - hence a conversion formula for Elo ratings is going to be somewhat off for German ratings.

Having played tournament chess in both England and Germany I do have the feeling that that new formula doesn't really convert playing strength very well - when I last played in England my BCF rating was around 160 and my DWZ was 1828 (=115.6?! the "old" conversion 154 makes more sense to me - I was more active in England in those days, so my BCF rating was probably lagging behind a bit). One problem of course is that until very recently there was no Elo below 2000 and particularly the lower Elo ratings were definitely inflated compared to higher Elo ratings (due to a rating only being handed out when you managed to get one above 2000, otherwise the results were "forgotten") - hence a conversion formula for Elo ratings is going to be somewhat off for German ratings.

More: Chess Games

cryptos
9 ( +1 | -1 )

blindio - bad maths. hey blindio -> (1705 - 600)/8 = 1105/8 = 138.125, not 91. It wouldn't make sense otherwise. Regards, Cryptos :).

blindio - bad maths. hey blindio -> (1705 - 600)/8 = 1105/8 = 138.125, not 91. It wouldn't make sense otherwise. Regards, Cryptos :).

More: Shredder Chess Online

cryptos
11 ( +1 | -1 )

whoops, sorry. :( sorry, blindio, I should've used the second formula, which is obviously unfair. Regards, Cryptos :(.

whoops, sorry. :( sorry, blindio, I should've used the second formula, which is obviously unfair. Regards, Cryptos :(.

More: Chess Opening Explorer