Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Chess rating system


  • 3 weeks ago · Quote · #2061

    Schackoo

    MuhammadAreez10 wrote:

    In all seriousness, 1400s look quite strong here. However, I manage to beat 1600s. Mere coincidence?

    I think playing on the internet poorly reflects your actual strength I R L. I have lost to 1200's and I've beaten 1800's - so how strong am I in the long run ? And what if I start learning something about chess ? I might get even stronger.

    However, there's a correlation between fast learning abilities and chess improving. The rating over time follows your higher understanding of the game.

  • 3 weeks ago · Quote · #2062

    Quiksilverau

    Ratings are good, they prevent high level players from having their time wasted by being matched with patzers like me. Meanwhile, patzers like me don't have to be demoralized by being matched with high level players.

  • 3 weeks ago · Quote · #2063

    jokicin

    time fraudsters have you shame
  • 3 weeks ago · Quote · #2064

    MuhammadAreez10

    I've given away easy wins to 1400s by making pointless blunders. I hope my thought process gets better.

  • 3 weeks ago · Quote · #2065

    simpleChess007

    consistency is the key to success. though, I'm not consistent.

  • 2 weeks ago · Quote · #2066

    curiouslad

    sorry I know that i am on the wrong thread but I cannot find how to create a new thread. 

     

    I ld like to know how how to get the blog rss feed of a specific member, could you tell me how to do that and where to look for the rss link 

     

    Thank uou for your help

  • 2 weeks ago · Quote · #2067

    greenfreeze

    i don;t understand what the ratings mean in terms of understanding

     

    would this be accurate?

    • 1200-1399 = 'D' player - usually a beginner;
    • 1400-1599 = 'C' player - average club or tournament player, most people control the center and develop and know scholar's mate
    •  1600 - 1799 = 'B' player - consistently above average;  and better at seeing plans
    • 1800-1999 = 'A' player - strong club player,  has lots of opening knowledge;
    • 2000-2199 = 'Expert' - extremely strong, consistent player with the possibility of achieving Master rating, has a lot of real talent; can see everything from opening to ending.
    •  2200-2399 = 'Master' - strongest amateur rank, hasn't quite got the hang of things yet but maybe one day he/she will wake up.

    International professional players have two ranks:

    • 2400-2499 = 'International Master' - weakest professional rank; strong, experienced international player, eats Masters for breakfast;
    • 2500+ = 'Grandmaster' - eats IMs for breakfast, lunch and dinner,  a chess genius who thinks nothing of playing 20 and 30 board simuls against Experts and Masters and is disappointed if he/she doesn't win every game, capable of playing 10-20 blindfold games at the same time, and winning, etc. etc, in short, an all around bricks and mortar, brass bound b*st*rd of a player, but they do lose on occasion, sometimes to players with a much lower rating and computers are better than that these days.
    • 2700+  world championship and and can see 20 moves deep
  • 14 days ago · Quote · #2068

    PamirLeopard87

    Schackoo wrote:
    MuhammadAreez10 wrote:

    In all seriousness, 1400s look quite strong here. However, I manage to beat 1600s. Mere coincidence?

    I think playing on the internet poorly reflects your actual strength I R L. I have lost to 1200's and I've beaten 1800's - so how strong am I in the long run ? And what if I start learning something about chess ? I might get even stronger.

    However, there's a correlation between fast learning abilities and chess improving. The rating over time follows your higher understanding of the game.

    I know what you mean and I agree mostly with you. 

    Nonetheless there is something wrong if a 1350 rated player can crush you move after move , yet when you are home and play vs a computer at 1800 ELO you win. That means that clearly some people here consider it ok to use computer help. I don't say that they do it for the entire game, but who knows, maybe they start using it if they don't know what to do.

     

    Again - I have two chess engines at home (Shredder and Tiger) and I beat the first one up to 1750 and the second one up to 1800 quite regularly. So somebody should explain me why here,players that are way below those ratings, can just take over the game after 10 moves.

    Fuck that, seriously. 

  • 14 days ago · Quote · #2069

    petrip

    PamirLeopard87 wrote:

    Again - I have two chess engines at home (Shredder and Tiger) and I beat the first one up to 1750 and the second one up to 1800 quite regularly. So somebody should explain me why here,players that are way below those ratings, can just take over the game after 10 moves.

    1: Your rating here is just bit over 1500. It certainly does not translate in OTB 1800.

    2: What makes assume that elo strength setting on computer really matches that of real ELO rating

    My SELO(ELO for finland) is about 1400 and my standard rating is about 1400. so go figure

    3: RATINGS ARE RELATIVE. By and large no two pools will assign same number for sam skill level. SO 1400 means you should have a fair game with some with ratinng 1400 HERE.

    x

  • 8 days ago · Quote · #2070

    petrip

    How would you do that? Rating is calculted at interval resulting in a number and history is not taken into account after that (or history is condensed into that umber)

     

    Thera algorithms that re-evaluate rating ased on history. Commoly used in go servers and hardly ever in chess. They are faster to converge. Bayes-Elo would be on such

  • 7 days ago · Quote · #2071

    jokicin

    fb thieves of time

  • 6 days ago · Quote · #2072

    mauve_penguin

    Queen4aKnight wrote:

    How come some people have points and others don't

    What kind of points?

  • 5 days ago · Quote · #2073

    jokicin

    chess.com thieves of time without shame

  • 4 days ago · Quote · #2074

    petrip

    mauve_penguin wrote:
    Queen4aKnight wrote:

    How come some people have points and others don't

    What kind of points?

    There are points one can earn by taking part in forums and by writing blogs. I think they are worthless, certainly not connected to ratings

  • 4 days ago · Quote · #2075

    jokicin

    thieveschess.com

  • 3 days ago · Quote · #2076

    keimakatsuragi_90

    yo


Back to Top

Post your reply: