Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Chess Ratings - How They Work

  • erik
  • | Aug 23, 2007
  • | 83454 views
  • | 402 comments

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

Comments


  • 3 years ago

    eugenekorpan

    Hi everyone

    There are so many comments, I cannot read them all so I just want to ask. There are two kinds of ratings in Live Chess: Standart and Blits. What do they mean? Why are there two ratings?

  • 3 years ago

    MikeDoyle

    It's a logistic distribution, not a normal one, skewed toward the top.

  • 3 years ago

    buddachi

    I see that playing lower rated opponents isnt worth it (rating wise) if I win I get 3 pts. BUT if I lose I lose 9 - 12 points or more ? I wont play lower rated players any more if this system award points in this way !

  • 3 years ago

    Ipo_BigIsland

    I won game aginst higher rated player by checkmate. Why I did not get points for it

  • 3 years ago

    chidumira

    waal!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • 3 years ago

    Xenekaro

    Hi I am new to this website and my rating is volatile (naturally :) However, I am really enjoying playing chess here.

    I think a good improvement to the rating system would be to show the number of pts gained or lost to an opponent. With time perhaps, people will get a fairly clear idea of how many pts they will lose or gain from a particular opponent.

    Also, your rating should include the RD (is it already there?). That will make it easier to approx. calculate the ratings.

    Cheers.

  • 3 years ago

    GarenElstonStudent

    I have a rating of 486.  Does this make me a Grandmaster?

  • 3 years ago

    EdwardLollar

    the one complaint that I have about this current rating system that I would like to see changed is that from what I have observed it bases the figure on what the two ratings were at the start of the game, but if either rating changes while in the middle of play, it is not factored in.  For example, if my opponent is at 1350 at the start of the game with a rating adjustment of +45 for a win because mine is 1300 (a spread of only 50)...if his/her rating changes to 1550 during the game, the win adjustment is still only +45 (assuming mine does not change).  If the game had been started with a spread of 250, the rating adjustment would have been higher...perhaps +75.  It is made worse if the spread gets larger because one goes up and the other goes down...he goes to 1550 and I go 1200 (for example), the spread of 350 might have been +100 if we had started the game but remains +45 because the spread happened during the middle of play.  This is not realistic.  The calculation at the time of win needs to also factor in the current ratings and their relative spread...obviously, if the spread narrows, a larger win adjustment need not apply, and if it widens, it needs to be larger...again, this does happen if the spread is there at the start of the game but not during the middle of gameplay.

  • 3 years ago

    MikeDoyle

  • 3 years ago

    MikeDoyle

    no

  • 3 years ago

    Iksparov

    is 1687 a good rating

  • 3 years ago

    MikeDoyle

    I noticed a typo. lol.  In "If this if your first game on Chess.com,"  the second "if" should be "is." :P

  • 3 years ago

    rawwat44

    i wants  moor friend

  • 3 years ago

    rawwat44

    truste for victroy>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

  • 3 years ago

    mahbukkit

    GMs(grandmasters) ratings are usually over 2000. the average rating is 1200.

    1600 is good, 1800 is great, under 1100 is, "You need a lil bit moar practice thar"

  • 3 years ago

    grogs

    loss is a loss

  • 3 years ago

    jbell35

    does any body know which senario loses more points, check mate or resignation?

  • 3 years ago

    kindredish

    how can i lose the game when my opponents time has ran out?

  • 3 years ago

    friendless

    enlightening - thanks!

  • 3 years ago

    luchine

    Thank you! That was a clear, short, and yet satisfying explanation.

Back to Top

Post your reply: