10689 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
I usually don't resign to early but when I do its because of the psychology of it. Some positions are not fun to play. Down a couple of pawns really hurts me a lot more than down a piece.
This is because good chess players use their pieces while I push pawns. It's too bad pawns don't have the option to stay pawns when they reach the other side.
"fail; fail again; fail better" - Samuel Beckett
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 :)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Correspondence-like Chess on Playchess.com server
by mofai a few minutes ago
CONTEST: Caption this Image of Anand & Carlsen
by ConnorMacleod_151 a few minutes ago
12/10/2013 - Easterwood-Williams 2004
by romanrapido a few minutes ago
What's the Fastest way to win a Chess game
by sandygomez09 a few minutes ago
Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?
by B_King 5 minutes ago
OTB win yesterday
by ConnorMacleod_151 10 minutes ago
I'll share on FB and do premium...
by jac1yn 12 minutes ago
I am quitting chess.
by ConnorMacleod_151 12 minutes ago
select pieces style globally
by jac1yn 15 minutes ago
Chess Troll for the Year!
by ConnorMacleod_151 16 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!