A lot of rating systems (including USCF) label ratings as "provisional" when they're based on a small number of games, to indicate that the player's rating isn't well established within the system. On some internet playing sites, this is indicated by putting (P) after the rating. That might be a way to go here, and it should be easy enough to add to the site code, for players with less than 25 games or something. Erik? What do you think?
--Fromper
A lot of rating systems (including USCF) label ratings as "provisional" when they're based on a small number of games, to indicate that the player's rating isn't well established within the system. On some internet playing sites, this is indicated by putting (P) after the rating. That might be a way to go here, and it should be easy enough to add to the site code, for players with less than 25 games or something. Erik? What do you think?
--Fromper
we CAN do that. but really, when you use the Glicko system that should not be necessary. if you win or lose vs. somebody very very new your rating just won't change that much because they have a VERY high RD. makes sense?
I don't necessarily fight to the point of checkmate when my position's dead lost, but if I can find any counterplay at all, I'll play on. I believe in giving my opponents every possible opportunity to blunder.
The one exception to this is when I'm playing at major OTB tournaments, and I know that I have another game later the same day. Sometimes, I'll resign slightly sooner than I would otherwise (though still not as soon as I drop a pawn!) just to save my energy and rest up for the next game.
--Fromper
A lot of rating systems (including USCF) label ratings as "provisional" when they're based on a small number of games, to indicate that the player's rating isn't well established within the system.
I like this idea. FICS uses the Glicko rating system, but like the USCF, they mark a player as provisional unless they've played several games. That way, when you see someone rated "1400P", you'll know their rating is only based on one or two games.
http://www.freechess.org/Help/HelpFiles/v_provshow.html
Would this really impact who or how you played? You already have access to their full game history if you want to check it out, and that's pretty telling.
perhaps :) we'll see how things settle in after another few months to see if we are indeed inflated.
I don't think there's any real merit in even attempting to compare a Chess.com rating with USCF /BCF / whatever. The chess.com rating is applicable to a group of people playing together in the same circumstances i.e. here.
In addition, you don't know what your opponents at the other end of the 'wire' might be using to assist them. You don't get that OTB.
Sure, I know the chess.com rating skews wildy in the early stages, but everyone is subject to the same system - which - if we are honest and don't cheat - makes for a level playing field.
Those of you with an official, dare I say, 'real world' rating - thanks for coming in here and sharing.
If you haven't beaten a 2000, you shouldn't be able to become one. And it makes sense that once you've proven yourself to be a certain level of player, you're ranking should denote that. I also don't understand how if you have a bad game and lose to an 800 player why your rating should drop 200 pts.
Bill,
I think the ratings are under-inflated for top players, but for other players, they are definitely over inflated. In my case, I take a long time to play some of my moves, spending all that time analyzing all different scenarios. And I currently happen to have around 1800 rating here. In real tournament chess, I am sure I won't have that kind of time to analyze, and I am darn sure I will lose a lot more games. I think my real rating would be several hundred points below my rating here.
I have to disagree with Bill Wall about the ratings being under-inflated. Maybe above the 2000 level, that's true, but they're definitely over-inflated at lower levels. My rating here (1700ish) is a little more than 300 points higher than my USCF rating. But that's consistant with other internet sites. At FICS (freechess.org), my rating in slow games (usually 30-75 minutes per game) is slightly higher than my rating here.
And most of the opponents I've played here rated at or below my rating are severely over-inflated, as well. I started with a 1200 rating here and challenged people with 1300-1500 ratings here, since that's near my USCF rating. I beat everyone I played in that rating range, most of them quite easily. I played one guy with a rating in the 1300's here who moved his queen on something like 6 of his first 9 moves. That type of play would be lucky to earn a 4 digit rating in USCF tourneys.
I do agree with the idea of a ratings max based on your opponents. If you win or lose against someone with a rating too far away from yours, it shouldn't affect your rating. Why should a master gain points for beating a 1200 player?
--Fromper
I beg to differ. My USCF is around 1740 and my blitz is ~1550 and my correspondence is ~1650
Going back to the ratings debate I think monty's suggestion of using a ? (question mark) after peoples ratings (who have less than a certain amount of games under their belt) is a great and simple idea.
or perhaps sometimes a number is just a number :)