14633 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!
In the games history, the ratings incorrectly display the ratings AFTER the match, and not the ratings of the players AT THE TIME THEY PLAYED the game. e.g. A player of 1300 beats a player of 1500. The ratings then change to be, say, 1340 and 1460. After the match, the game is displayed in the history as, say, a game between a player of 1340 and 1460. No! The game was between a player of 1300 and 1500!
Of course the ratings after a match are more accurate than they are before the match, but they are not the correct ratings to display for the match. The match (in my example) was played between a player of 1300 and 1500, NOT between a player of 1340 and 1460, and therefore it is 1300 and 1500 which should be displayed against each player for the history of that match. To give you another example, suppose a player of 1700 played someone of 1800 and beat them, and the new ratings were 1750 and 1750, to display that the match was between two players of identical rating (1750) is incorrect and thoroughly misleading. What has happened is that a player of a lower ranking has beaten a player of a higher ranking, and that is what should be displayed. Isn't that what is displayed whenever you see a match listed in the chess press, the rating at the start of the game before any recalculation based on the result of the game? Isn't that what I as a player would be interested in?
I tend to agree with you - but that's how the system works here. I don't think it matters that much does it though? Does it make a difference how you view or interpret a match won by someone rated, say, 1900 or someone rated 1880?
I know that's how the system works here; I'm just pointing out that it's wrong, and contrary to how it works everywhere else in the world of chess.
Does it matter? If it's a 1500 player against a 2000 player, probably not, because the differences would be small, and there's not much difference with what the grades whoever wins, but games are typically between players of quite similar grades, and so yes, there it makes much more of a difference, because it often makes the difference between say me when I am a lesser player beating a better player.
For example imagine a match between a 1370 and a 1400 where the 1370 wins and so the new grades go 1370->1390 and 1400->1380. What is displayed is that a I as a 1390 beat a worse player who was a 1380 grade. This is not true at all! I had a satisfying victory, being a 1380 player who beat a 1400 player.
Hi, Any chance of this being fixed?
I agree, for a long time my best win was against a 1985(plus-minus), but he was over 2000 when we played. Took me a looooong time to finally get that real 2000 scalp
A funny result of this is that, when I started playing Chess960 games (against 1200 players, of course), each successive win became my "best win" because the higher rated I became, the fewer rating points a 1200 player would lose by losing against me.
I'd like it see it changed for aesthetic reasons... actually, I've always wanted the site to display the rating change at the end of the game. That'd be the best of both worlds.
Any chance of this being fixed?
Anybody in chess.com reading these posts? Any chance of this bug being fixed?
In the games history, the ratings incorrectly display the ratings AFTER the match, and not the ratings of the players AT THE TIME THEY PLAYED the game.
Of course the ratings after a match are more accurate than they are before the match, but they are not the correct ratings to display for the match. ...
... Isn't that what is displayed whenever you see a match listed in the chess press, the rating at the start of the game before any recalculation based on the result of the game?
At the time they played the match, over a period of months or years, a player's rating would not have been static. Is the rating one second before the end of the game more reasonable than the one from one second after the game or the average in the time the game was played?
One reason the chess press would use the old rating is that the new rating is not official until FIDE (or other chess federation) publishes it some months later.
"The Qualification Commission shall prepare a list six times a year which incorporates the rated play during the rating period into the previous list. This shall be done using the rating system formula based on the percentage expectancy curve and derived from the normal distribution function of statistical and probability theory."
FIDE list - http://ratings.fide.com/toplist.phtml. (Previously published four times a year.)
Live list - http://chess.liverating.org/
This is not a bug. This is how it is supposed to work.
The ratings after each game are closer to the player's true statistical average. And it makes sense to display the most accurate rating available. In your example of 1370 vs. 1400, if the ratings change to 1390 vs. 1380, the chances are your opponent IS weaker than you.
So let's just get on with our lives!
I'm sorry but I disagree. The rest of the chess world displays the ratings of a game based on the ratings of the game when it started and not when it ended, so why should Chess.com be any different?
What is the answer to life, the universe, and everything (and chess)?
by D_McGregor 4 minutes ago
Grabbing the Queen for Queening
by Pulpofeira 4 minutes ago
Manners on chess.com
by patzermike 5 minutes ago
can monkey's play chess?
by kleelof 19 minutes ago
Hurt/Heal Opening Traps
by rqi3 19 minutes ago
Why is it we never hear of Maxime Vachier-Lagrave even though he's in the top 10
by EscherehcsE 26 minutes ago
Is Aronian overrated
by mnhsr 27 minutes ago
Kings Indian Question. No early d6.
by WhatIsThisHereNow 28 minutes ago
Chessmaster XI: Me vs Josh - Age 6
by EscherehcsE 42 minutes ago
Do you think the Budapest Gambit is better than the Sicilian for club level?
by mike_tal 53 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 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!