Chess Ratings - How They Work

Submitted by erik on Thu, 08/23/2007 at 10:56pm.

Like it or not, we ALL have a chess rating. You may not care at all about your rating, or you may be whining every time it goes down in the slightest. You might be someone who plays a game a year, or someone who plays 1,000 a day. Still, there is a number out there that represents how well you play chess. Well, that's the theory, anyway.

To understand chess ratings you have to understand two things: #1 - that you have a TRUE rating that perfectly represents your strength of play, and #2 - that that TRUE rating will never be known and so we have to use statistics to get as close as possible to the truth. I'm writing this article in response to many people who ask about ratings and need a simple explanation of how they work. (I only know about all this because of a recent super-in-depth statistics course I took and my research in building Chess.com!)

There are two main rating systems, and each one has its merits.

The Elo System (used by the United States Chess Federation, FIDE, and many other online chess sites) is popular for two reason - it has been around for a long time, and it is simple. The idea is this: given two chess players of different strengths, we should be able to calculate the % chance that the better player will win the game. For example, Garry Kasparov has ~100% chance of beating my 4-year-old daughter. But he may only have a ~60% chance of beating another Grandmaster. So when playing that other Grandmaster, if he wins 6 games out of 10, his rating would stay the same. If he won 7 or more, it would go up, and 5 of less, his rating would go down. Basically, the wider the spread of the ratings, the higher percentage of games the higher rated player is expected to win. So to calculate a person's rating after playing a few games you calculate the average ratings of his opponents, and then how many games he was expected to win, and then plug it into a formula that spits out the new rating. Simple enough. Well, it turns out, that is maybe TOO simple.

The Glicko System (used by Chess.com, the Australian Chess Federation, and some other online sites) is a more modern approach that builds on some of the concepts above, but uses a more complicated formula. (This only makes sense now that we have computers that can calculate this stuff in the blink of an eye - when Elo created his system they were doing it on paper!) It is a bit trickier than the Elo system, so pay attention. With the Elo system you have to assume that everyone's rating is just as sure as everyone else's rating. So my rating is as accurate as your rating. But that is just not true. For example, if this is your first game on Chess.com and you start at 1200, how do we really know what your rating is? We don't. But if I have played 1,000 games on this site, you would be much more sure that my current rating is accurate. So the Glicko system gives everyone not only a rating, but an "RD", called a Rating Deviation. Basically what that number means is "I AM 95% SURE YOUR RATING IS BETWEEN X and Y." (Nerd Fact: In technical terms this is called a "confidence interval".) If this if your first game on Chess.com I might say, "I am 95% sure that your rating is somewhere between 400 and 2400". Well that is a REALLY big range! And that is represented by a really big RD, or Rating Deviation. If you have played 1,000 games and your rating is currently 1600 I might say "I am 95% sure your rating is between 1550 and 1650". So you would have a low RD. As you play more games, your RD gets lower. To add one extra wrinkle in there, the more recent your games, the lower your RD. Your RD gets bigger over time (because maybe you have gotten better or worse over time - I'm just less sure of what your actual rating is if I haven't seen you play recently). Now, how does this affect ratings? Well, if you have a big RD, then your rating can move up and down more drastically because your rating is less accurate. But if you have a small RD then your rating will move up and down more slowly because your rating is more accurate. The opposite is true for your opponent! If they have a HIGH RD, then your rating will change LESS when you win or lose because their rating is less accurate. But if they have a LOW RD, then your rating will move MORE because their rating is more accurate.

I wish there was some simple analogy to explain all this, but there isn't. It all comes back to this: you have a theoretically exact chess rating at any given moment, but we don't know what that is and so we have to use math to estimate what it is. There are really smart people out there who work on this stuff for a living, and at the end of it all we get to put their proven methods into our code so that we can all enjoy knowing what little numbers next to our name we deserve.

If you want to read more, check out these articles (WARNING - SEVERE NERD CONTENT AHEAD):

- The Glicko System by Professor Mark Glickman, Boston University

- Introduction to Chess Ratings (Elo mostly) on About.com

» posted in Chess.com Help
« Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Next »

Comments:

by leslie336 - 4 days ago
La Jolla United States
Member Since: Jun 2008
Member Points: 4

Why not the folowing:

If the assigned opponent shows blank - no rating, don't display the game creator's either.

Alternately, display not rated,or not known

by BehemothTheCat - 5 days ago
United States
Member Since: Feb 2009
Member Points: 22

One (quite important) thing this article doesn't explain is whether chess.com uses the ratings of both players *when the game starts* to calculate the final deltas, or the ratings when the game ends.  I feel the former is by far the fairer alternative.

Of course this choice only exists in correspondence chess or similar situations when one player can play multiple games at once (and get them rated).  It doesn't occur in classic OTB chess.

I'd be grateful for someone to elaborate on this, and yes, it's personal.

by silverhawkz - 5 days ago
Toril Davao Philippines
Member Since: Oct 2009
Member Points: 250

wow! Now I understood!

by kingkoy301 - 13 days ago
Nonthaburi Thailand
Member Since: Sep 2009
Member Points: 73

Nice,  things are a bit clearer.

by Seymouriii - 16 days ago
United States
Member Since: Jul 2009
Member Points: 16

The Statistical Data & Probability in Chess Rating & Chess period will become more Accurate when  " No Draw " is a Rule & Chess is only Win, Lose,or Stalemate. I Love the Game of Chess & this is my Thought OKCool

by Gary_Seven - 16 days ago
Columbia United States
Member Since: Feb 2009
Member Points: 589

Hey! I  for some odd reaqson 150-250- ratings points were illegally taken away from me. I sent you this complant .about two weeks ago! When do get an answer or a resolvement?

by danilonacua - 24 days ago
Jasaan, Misamis Oriental Philippines
Member Since: Sep 2009
Member Points: 2

Well, at least there's an explanation how the players are rated. Actually, i couldn't care less about my rating. I play chess to enjoy and feel the thrill. If possilble, I would like to win, but  you can't beat them all. Besides, I don't think I could make it to the Master's level. So, after all the fuss about ratings...have fun!!!

by jimr - 26 days ago
south NJ United States
Member Since: Jan 2008
Member Points: 52

after reading the article, I still have questions.  I am fairly active, usually have about 10 games going, yet my rating seems very volatile.  I have seen my rating jump 40 points while playing someone close to my own rating. for instance, I just beat a player and my rating went up 15 points.  his rating was very close to mine when the game started, but at this point, I've been on a winning streak, and have about 300 points on him. which brings up my second question:  is the rating difference calculated at the beginning of a game, or at the end?  it would seem like it shouldn't matter, but if it is at the end, that brings up gamesmanship issues, where someone might prolong a lost game, or resign quickly, depending on what he thinks might happen in other games I have pending.

 

 thanks.

         jr

by Gary_Seven - 29 days ago
Columbia United States
Member Since: Feb 2009
Member Points: 589

I have a problem. Three days ago,I ahad a 1407 rating.Without losing I won two game,now my rating is 1152. I do not understand this mix up?? I would like this straighten out and do not keep throwing ads in,they interfear with my games. If you would cut your price,people might just pay for chess.

by Remi-le-surfeur - 35 days ago
Grenoble France
Member Since: Sep 2009
Member Points: 3

Good article.

But I cannot see what the image with the little calculation has to do with the purpose... I miss the real calculation formula and I guess it must have something to do with the normal law (from Gauss).

And have have played alredy 1 game and my rating didn't change. Why ?

by dorothyd - 41 days ago
west yorkshire England
Member Since: Feb 2009
Member Points: 233

I have just beaten a player who the last time I looked was 59 points above me and if I had lost I would have lost 29 points. I beat him and HE only lost 10 points

by dorothyd - 41 days ago
west yorkshire England
Member Since: Feb 2009
Member Points: 233

It's as clear as mud to me. So in all that information there must be the answer to why when  I beat a higher rated player I lose more points than when that player loses to me or someone of a similar rating to me they do not lose as many points. I thought an old wrinkly like me would be able to get my head around the system but I can't!

by JollyPlayer - 59 days ago
Southern Indiana United States
Member Since: Jul 2009
Member Points: 291

Well, I have done as much investigation into the Glicko adjustment as I can.  Yes the formulas are available.  Yes a computer can do them.  Dr. Elo was famous for saying (and I paraphrase) that "it is like measuring a cork on the water with a ruler in the wind."

Dr. Glickman, is now at Boston University.  His paper was published in 2001.  While several sites point to a version of it, none of the links I have found work.  There is a program.  Erik and Chess.com found the whole thing although the numbers are far from being explained.

There are several troubling things about the Glicko adjustment.  First, in 2008, even Dr. Glickman admitted it was still being debugged.  His site at Boston University says he would like to be "the John Travolta of Statistics".  I have no idea what that means.   His doctorate is not in statistics, but Health Sciences and Measurement outcomes.  He works at the hospital.

Lastly, complexity does not mean accuracy.  Sure a computer can do it.  Dr. Elo did it for FIDE until 1980 with an HP calculator.   My Ph.D is in Applied Statistics and Research.  The first thing we were taught was simplicity.  Finite Markov Chains have proven to be quite accurate, but hard to calculate.

Glickman's adjustment is an adjustment for time.  His hypothesis?  The person who has been rated the most recently probably has a more accurate score than someone who has not played recently.

This, in my opinion, has not been proven to my satisfaction.  Time as a statistically significant factor has not been proven.  It would make a great study.  How would anyone know if the computer is wrong?  Simplicity is great.  Complexity, sometimes, and I emphasize, sometimes, is more accurate.  But is it statistically significant?

Since Dr. Glickman was still debugging it (improving it, changing it) in 2008, there must have been problems.  The K-factor alone will lead to inflated scores.

It has been asked many times here why are the scores at Chess.com higher than USCF or FIDE scores.  Two reasons.  One, the scores only reflect on the pool you play against.  FIDE has stronger players.

And second, the Glickman adjustment.   The K-value of FIDE goes as low as 10.  With the Glicko adjustment, it is floored at 16.

I have been guilty myself of trying to change statistical procedures to be more accurate.  But I tried to make them more SIMPLE, not more complex.  Dr. Glickman states his scores are LIKE a probability.  Dr. Elo, on the other hand, said they were a probability.  That is troubling to a statistician. 

No going back once it is programmed.  It Dr. Glickman changes it, or if subsequent studies show the Elo system just as accurate, well, Chess.com is stuck with the system.

Yes, any math major can input it into a computer.  But can they say why or why not it may or may not work? 

Bottom line.  The Glicko adjustment gives more credit in points to someone who plays less often and wins.  Practice, in Glickman's view, is not rewarded as much as laying off is.  That seems funny to me.

Erik mentioned that the number of games gives and more accurate probability.  Yes it does.  Even the Elo system took that into account.  Glickman never uses the word "probability."

Jim Fallet, Ph.D.

BTW, if Glickman's adjustment was used when the late Bobby Fischer came out of hiding to play Boris Spassky and won, his rating would have been MUCH higher.

by knightofthedead - 2 months ago
Ottawa Canada
Member Since: Jun 2008
Member Points: 2

Erik,

Well explained - it all makes perfect sense. You couldn't have been more clear. I am enlightened!

by Vjgator - 2 months ago
Des Moines United States
Member Since: Aug 2009
Member Points: 49

Hummmph, verrry interesting!!!

by VainSang - 2 months ago
Compiègne France
Member Since: Aug 2009
Member Points: 109

Good article. Now I have a rate that I know and a RD which I don't know! 

 

Thank you for this clear and simple explaination

by jamrocker - 2 months ago
jamrock Jamaica
Member Since: Aug 2009
Member Points: 1

So basically, you have one chance to make a good impression and quick while you're ahead........just like everything else in life. Jamaica rules by the way:P

by RBAwasthi - 2 months ago
Deesa BANASKANTHA(GUJARAT) India
Member Since: Aug 2009
Member Points: 309

Too much Mathematics makes complication to common player,make it still simpler.

by Grandmaster38 - 2 months ago
Dhaka Bangladesh
Member Since: Aug 2009
Member Points: 26

Excellent article!

by macsys - 3 months ago
woerden Netherlands
Member Since: Jan 2009
Member Points: 42

Hi Erik,

Great article!  Is there a formula (or table) that compares ELO vs Glicko rating?

So, if I have 1550 Glicko, my ELO = ........

Rgds,

Macsys

« Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Next »

Add your comment:

Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.