You have some point in that the FIDE rating seems to show the actual strength of the opponent. But on the other hand how stable are the FIDE ratings at the moment, without how infrequent one meets/plays against a player with a FIDE rating. Almost feels like for most people their FIDE ratings are somewhat provisional as I have met plenty who only got their first FIDE rating this year (like myself). While one would assume that the ICU (National) rating is somewhat more reliable as one would play more games over the course of the year versus opponents within that grading system. An ICU article does raise some interesting points regarding that
on ICU
"On the one hand we have a national pool made up of
every conceivable kind of player: long term, transient, local, beginner, old, young,
those whose final rating will not be much more than their initial estimated grade,
and those whose ratings are destined to increase by 1000 points or so"
on FIDE
"On the other hand the pool of players with which FIDE deals is composed largely of
players whose initial burst of improvement is over, and who have attained a level of
competence that enables them to engage in international play. Furthermore, FIDE
only deals with the interplay between such players. The FIDE pool is therefore much
more stable, and is the one to which local pools should be aligned so that a given
rating on any one list would reflect the same standard of play as the same rating on
another."
ratings.icu.ie/articles/history/articles_1984_86.pdf
on ICU
"On the one hand we have a national pool made up of
every conceivable kind of player: long term, transient, local, beginner, old, young,
those whose final rating will not be much more than their initial estimated grade,
and those whose ratings are destined to increase by 1000 points or so"
on FIDE
"On the other hand the pool of players with which FIDE deals is composed largely of
players whose initial burst of improvement is over, and who have attained a level of
competence that enables them to engage in international play. Furthermore, FIDE
only deals with the interplay between such players. The FIDE pool is therefore much
more stable, and is the one to which local pools should be aligned so that a given
rating on any one list would reflect the same standard of play as the same rating on
another."
ratings.icu.ie/articles/history/articles_1984_86.pdf
I agree, the ICU ratings are far more reliable than FIDE. The players at our level have only newly received a FIDE rating and are playing against players who have also only just got a rating, so it doesn't seem very accurate. It's ironic that the article you quote says FIDE should be more stable, in my experience the opposite is true. After I play more FIDE rated games against opponents who in turn have played more FIDE games, things should begin to stablise.
In a way, it's like when I first started playing tournaments and only had a provisional ICU rating, that rating wasn't much of a guide to my real skill or that of my opponents. At the moment, if my opponent is 1500 FIDE, that doesn't give me a lot of detail on their true level, I'd probably ignore that and focus on their ICU rating.
In a way, it's like when I first started playing tournaments and only had a provisional ICU rating, that rating wasn't much of a guide to my real skill or that of my opponents. At the moment, if my opponent is 1500 FIDE, that doesn't give me a lot of detail on their true level, I'd probably ignore that and focus on their ICU rating.