Whipster,
Are you sure that OTB ratings start off at 1000? What is the FIDE policy? I think USCF starts out at 1200.
The USCF starts people out as unrated, and calculates a provisional rating after each tournament. The provisional rating, which becomes permanent after 25 games, is based on the player's win/loss record and his opponent's ratings.
How do the ratings here compare to the ratings on others chess sites? There was another site I played on before I discovered chess.com and my rating there was around 400 points higher than it is here. I suspect the people that play here are better, that's why I get whooped by lower rated players.
viswanathan wrote:
...turtle, the general points system followed is as follows:
pawn - 1pt.
knight/bishop - 3pts.
rook - 5pts.
queen - 10pts.
of course points are not everything...
Correct me if I'm wrong, some books say the relative strength of the bishop is higher by a fraction of a point (1/4) -- 3 1/4 or whatever fraction, and queen is 9 points, and the king is 3 points.
The king doesn't have a value, he's priceless.
everyone starts at 1200. then as you play you get a new rating. it is all based on the Glicko ratings system :) check it out - it's a fun read!
http://math.bu.edu/people/mg/glicko/glicko.doc/glicko.html
The problem I have after reading this is Glicko assumes the rating of a player who has been out of the game for a while is not reliable. Let's say that I play chess for 20 years and earn a 1700 rating then stop playing for 20 years. A new prodigy comes up and after 2 years of playing has a 1700 rating but his rating is earned more recently than mine was. That would make the prodigies rating after only two years of play more valid than my rating earned after 20 years of play because I haven't played in 20 years. I could have 1000 professional games under my belt and the young prodigy only 100 so how is my rating less valid than his? I would consider the newer players rating the less reliable because he has fewer games. Time should have no effect on how many points someone gains or loses from a match. If we could bring J.R. Capablanca back from the dead would anyone say that his rating is less valid than Vladimir Kramniks?
There is some validity to the assumption that a player's rating is less reliable if they haven't played for a period of time. Chess is like most games; if you don't play, your skill decreases (you become rusty), and the rating that you had in the past is not indicative of your present skill. If we could bring Capablanca back from the dead, he would have to play for awhile to regain his past skill level.
I think it's a system within another grading system. Seems to me there are 5 categories a Chess player falls into.
1. Beginner 2. Intermediate 3. Advanced 4. Master 5. Grandmaster
I think ratings are more like a 'current form' guide. A high rating suggests an opponent who is used to winning, but it doesn't matter unless you know the calibre of his opponents. If you don't know then all you can deduce from the rating is that your opponent knows how to play Chess.
If your a beginner there's no need to know anything about ratings. If your Intermediate you probably play at lot online or at a club but don't concern yourself with ratings. Advanced players might take notice of ratings. With Master & Grandmaster it goes with the territory. All this stuff is probably the reason why Chess is broken into different 'federations', like boxing. I don't think any of it matters unless you play for a living! Personally I feel that greatest player in the world is probably some old guy who plays in the park every day for the last 40 years, who doesn't use a clock and gives you a funny look if you talk about ratings.
I am getting hammered ny Glicko in the tactcal problems section. I have dropped 300 points today I am getting +3 or 4 for solving and minus 15 and 16 for time or failing.
What is going on here have you tightened it up or am I getting dumber ??
This is the average rating that you can have. During your first few games, your rating will change alot. As you play more games, you will get our true rating based on how many you win or lose.
Ok, im confused, is it better to have a high rating or a low rating?
High
Oh yes it does! How well you play includes how well you manage your time. Time is as much part of Chess as it is in other games. In football you could score the greatest goal in history, but if the referee blows time before it goes in it doesn't count. Similarly in Chess if you don't get your moves in within the time, you lose, and correctly so.
I could be wrong, but I assume she's talking about blitz games. There are lots of people who are great blitz players but terrible in long games, and vice versa.
What is a high rating on the tactics trainer.
I am lousy at Blitz being an old codger
I personally do not like to play for rating. Especially since I had some games when the piece slipped from my grip before I go to to the square I wanted to occupy. Since Chess.com does not have and "undo" option, it can be costly.I lost several games that way. Obviously, this will affect your rating. In some of the games, my opponents and I agreed to a draw.
One other concern I had was about the time. I do not like wtith the clock, because I need lots of time to consider all my options. I notice that some players set their clocks for 30, 60, 120 minutes. Too much time is just as bad as too little. I suspect that lots of players are cheating. How? They have 2 computers set up. Perhaps one is a lap top. They have computer chess game installed on it and are playing on line with another computer. They mimic their opponents moves on the lap top then transfer the move the computer makes to the real game they are playing in chess.com.
I know this sounds cynical, but I think that is cheating. This could be one reason why some people set their timers for long games. What are your thoughts?
My (modest) opinion is that chess.com ratings are not too realistic. I think the ratingsystem could use some modification (ratingformula). I know, cc-rating is not to be compared with rating in real life, but I also know some cc-chesssites use a formula giving an almost realistic rating. Even after playing some 50 cc-games. B.t.w.: I love this site, great features.
are the chess.com ratings meaningful off the site? if you tell someone your elo rating is, say, 1500, do you have to add your chess.com elo rating is, say, 1500?
I beat someone who had over 100 points higher than me and it said "null" and I got no points and I don't think he lost any. The rating system is screwed.
Weird. I think the ratingformula is weird. A player played only 4 games, won all, rating raised from 1200 to 2037......weird
I think over OTB rating is harder to get
No. Chess ratings are relative. That is, combining it with your opponent's rating gives an estimate of your score. But they have to be rated in the same pool of players. Your chess.com rating is only relevant when playing here. Your USCF rating is only relevant in USCF tournament. Your FIDE rating is only relevant in FIDE tournaments. And so on.
i will tell u but first shut up im good at cheess ok if ur down with i got 3 words for ya we hate hahaa im never lost
lol!!! hi all!!!! how are you?!?
Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.