# Chess Ratings - How They Work

• erik
• | Aug 23, 2007
• | 198210 views

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.

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):

• 2 years ago

USCF and FIDE ratings don't really have a correlation to Chess.com ratings or any other server ratings. The Chess.com system isn't even the same mathematical system, however it is similar. Also, there is a key difference in how ratings are acheived. To get a FIDE or USCF rating, you enter a tournament and have zero control over whom you play. Online servers offer more control.

This extra control means that some people may have higher Chess.com ratings than another person with the same USCF rating. One might just send out a seek to people of higher strength, while the other might only challenge those 200 points weaker than he/she. That will produce noticable differences in their online ratings.

• 2 years ago

GOOD EXPLANATION THOUGH!!!

• 2 years ago
[COMMENT DELETED]
• 2 years ago

good explanation......before reading dis my mind was very much confused abt this rating system

• 2 years ago

How do Chess.com ratings compore to USCF Ratings and FIDE ratings? If my USCF is 1600, should I expect my Chess.com rating to be about the same?

• 2 years ago

Thank you so much I was really confused on how the ratings work now I know I also had no idea what FIDE was or ELO now I know thanks a lot!

• 2 years ago
[COMMENT DELETED]
• 2 years ago

How would you rate my rating which is 652 so far? I want your feedback. I do not know where I am currently standing? I have started playing it online 5 days ago.

• 2 years ago

good article, and I found the comment/questions/ et al. to be interesting and amusing as well

• 2 years ago

• 2 years ago

Nobody should expect ratings to predict outcomes very closely. Even the "TRUE rating" couldn't determine the outcome.

In order to find out my "TRUE rating" here's what I imagine I would have to do:

a) Assemble a whole bunch of test positions, with evaluation for how good or bad various moves would be, and evaluation for how long I take to solve them

b) Test myself in various conditions against the problems. This is complicated because I might be bad at endgames if the room is noisy, or great at openings if the room has flickering lights etc.

c) Take some average of the results (who decides what factors are weighted by how much?)

It would take a lot of energy to carefully measure the "TRUE rating".

Then I get to an actual contest, and the outcome depends on my "TRUE abilities" + my actual state that day (compared to my average) + the actual conditions that day (random input from the environment) + the moves my actual opponents choose.

In the ratings system, all that noise is condensed into results (0, 1/2, 1) and then further condensed into the ratings adjustment to go from the current estimate to the updated estimate.

Overall there's a lot of condensation that occurs.

The "TRUE rating" doesn't determine the outcome. A person's mental & physical state, and the particulars of the setting and the actual game are what determine the outcome.

If chess had gambling, there could be a public "weigh-in", or like what they do in horse racing, where the contestants would show off their form before the betting closed ...

• 2 years ago

It's like on the street. You gotta mug a lot of people who got more n wot you hav but it ain't always easy. Best to catch em drunk....

• 2 years ago

where i can see my rating before start a new game

• 2 years ago

I have read the first 20 comments that appeared when I logged into this area.  There a lot of very interesting questions posed but no answeres!  I suspect the answeres to these questions would be not only interesting but, in some cases, educational.  If you are not going to provide replies to inquires this forum is of little value except as a "gripe" or "brag" forum.  Discontinue it and save yourself some computer space.

• 2 years ago

how do i only win 8 points for winning against someone a 100 points ahead of me but lose 8 points for losing to someone who is 50 points below me? that seems off to me.

• 2 years ago

My Glico RD of 52 looks about right to me. 1482 plus 52 is 1534 and that would be good for me. Minus 52 is 1430 and I wouldn't expect to go below that, even after the pub! I believe I should be a consistent 1500+ but high 1400s seems to be my natural game..... warts and all :(

Good article! :)

• 3 years ago

Like most games that humans play there are multiple variables that make up scores in various systems. Only a few of the variables are know widely at a certain period in time, thus with an increase in the global human population over time more variables will develope that become widely know and scores will change until chimps are introduced to the game -then we will need to refigure....Bobstem

• 3 years ago

my rating is not fine, because play few games.

• 3 years ago