Chess.com will be going offline in . We will be down for approximately 45 minutes.

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 statitics 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 | Next »

Comments:

by ChessKingShiva - 3 days ago
Chennai India
Member Since: Jan 2009
Member Points: 2

Opps.More compliction.Can anyone explain in simple terms.

by mandloichetan - 9 days ago
hell Seychelles
Member Since: Dec 2008
Member Points: 167

?????????????????????????????

by Olusaba - 11 days ago
Lagos Nigeria
Member Since: Apr 2009
Member Points: 36

The way rating is calculated is very interesting and complicated. But I love it. But to me, it sounds more theoretical.

by rlopez - 12 days ago
Garden Grove, California United States
Member Since: Jun 2009
Member Points: 5

I played a game as black and the other player played as white, he opened with the kings pawn and I opened the kings pawn but he never moved another piece after that on a 20 minute long game I waited fifteen minutes for him to move but it never came so closed the window out of fustration. The next day  it showed he won the game and I had a lower rating! 

by edwinn - 15 days ago
batangas city Philippines
Member Since: Sep 2008
Member Points: 27

its hard to understand but thank u anyway for some explanation..i got some idea

by cinema74 - 16 days ago
Sant Llorenç de la Muga Catalonia
Member Since: Oct 2008
Member Points: 27

Why are more detailed explanations usually referred to as being nerd stuff? Is there something wrong with having a more complete understanding of things? If so ... than trying to advance in playing chess is a nerd attitude as well?

by david47roudy - 25 days ago
Legaspi City Philippines
Member Since: May 2009
Member Points: 55

 Yea thanks i understand more accurate moves high %

by THEWHITEFOX - 25 days ago
I don't know Canada
Member Since: Feb 2008
Member Points: 519

my brain is fried, but I like math

by butcher46 - 26 days ago
Malta
Member Since: Dec 2008
Member Points: 62

hi to all i was playing online and i won by time my oppaonent went out of time my rating remain as it was hows that?

by Skand - 37 days ago
Dubai United Arab Emirates
Member Since: May 2009
Member Points: 33

What are the maximum theoretical ratings possible using Elo and Glicko systems respectively?

by Matalino - 40 days ago
Waipahu, Hawaii United States
Member Since: Aug 2007
Member Points: 275

Mark Glickman appears to also be the author of the USCF rating system as explained in "Approximating Formulas for the USCF Rating System" dated 02/22/2001:

http://math.bu.edu/people/mg/ratings/approx/approx.html

by Prathikshena - 43 days ago
Johor Bharu Malaysia
Member Since: Mar 2009
Member Points: 67

awesome article... it really helped...

its easy for me to understand because i juz took a course in Confidence interval and statistical probability.

by tkv - 55 days ago
Japan India
Member Since: Oct 2008
Member Points: 7

excellent article.. thanks so much for this...

I am also looking for how the tiebreak is calculated in the tournaments here.. pls email me when you post the reply

by Eternal_Patzer - 58 days ago
United States
Member Since: Mar 2009
Member Points: 168

It's never a waste of time to play someone better than you if you play hard every move and analyze the game afterward to learn from your mistakes.  Even 300 points is not an insurmountable obstacle.  A player rated 1400 can be counted on to make a lot of mistakes and probably at least one blunder in every game.  You'll have your chances!

by kytzu - 58 days ago
Bucharest Romania
Member Since: Jan 2009
Member Points: 7

So ... there is 1400, real rating and temporary rating 1400(maybe real 1100). If my rating is 1100, it's a wested time to play with someone with 1400-real, the difference is too high.

How could I know which rating is real or temporary?

+ You're right,Eternal_Patzer, but why we have rating if it is not the real one?

by Eternal_Patzer - 58 days ago
United States
Member Since: Mar 2009
Member Points: 168

How many moves had been played in your 2nd game?  If (I believe) less than 4 moves had been played the game was not rated.

by Paul-Marsden - 59 days ago
Hartlepool England
Member Since: Sep 2008
Member Points: 18

I just played 2 games against a player rated much higher than me.  He timed out in both.  The first game my rating went up but the second time it did not change.  Can anyone explain why?

by Eternal_Patzer - 59 days ago
United States
Member Since: Mar 2009
Member Points: 168

Does HOW you win or lose affect your rating?  Nope.

WHEN you win or lose may affect your rating in certain systems that don't rate games unless a certain number of moves are played.  In that case, resigning on the first move does not hurt your rating, but resigning on the 10th move does.

by fengine - 59 days ago
United States
Member Since: Jan 2009
Member Points: 5

Thanks Erik, useful article. I think of it in even simpler terms: if I beat someone rated much higher than me, my rating will go way up - if I lose to someone rated much higher than me, my rating will only go down a little.

But what I would like to know is: Is my rating affected differently in a loss if I was mated, or if I resigned, or if I ran out of time?

by nathansa - 2 months ago
St. Peters Saint Kitts/Nevis
Member Since: Mar 2009
Member Points: 1

Fascinating!  But why is it that on 'Live Chess', when I have more pieces on the board than my opponent and have a feel good vlaue about my game; more often than not, I still end up losing?

Please e-mail me about the logic of that.

The other thing is:  How do i get to respond to someone else's initiating game?  To get a game on 'Live Chess' I always have to initiate the game!!!  Tell me please how do I get to be te reactor?

 

Sam Nathan.

« Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Next »

Add your comment:

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