.

fischer wrote: AlecKeen wrote:Becca wrote:Rating has its place but its not the most important thing. Sometimes you can lose a game on time and it will seriously affect your rating this has nothing to do with how well you play.

---

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.

---

Some people continue to play others that have a much higher elo and lose more

often giving them a lower elo.

Does this website have Blitz games?

I can explain the statitical methods. But I think it is better for us to leave this work to the statiticians themselves.

In the simplest language the player with a higher rating plays slightly better the one with a lower rating. Ha! Ha! 

Let us not bang our heads doing that. Play and enjoy the games. Let the rating go up or down!! Who cares?

 

I'm new!

i'm sorry but i'm the best..

Rating is just one of the ways to assess how strong a player is!!  We all have our mood variations! On a day with the right mood we might play much better than the other days.

Don't worry  much about ratings! Just enjoy the ngame.

erik wrote:

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 

---

I'm good at math, but that makes almost no sense at all.

I rock!

I have no lost and I startred from 1200 too, so watch out leaders!

who is that pig who challenged me right now?

erik wrote:

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 

---

 From the article: "If the player is unrated, set the rating to 1500 and the RD to 350."

 

The average is 1500, not 1200. However, chess sites that set unrated players at 1500 tend to find themselves with grossly inflated ratings. Those that set initial ratings at 1200 more often achieve the 1500 average. 

Um yah, this went over my head but I think I understand it.

"my points" is unrelated to your chess rating. It is a rough measure of your participation in the non-playing aspects of the site. You have a separate chess rating that measures your playing ability.

Well when it comes to time in a sit down game with someone in front of you its alot more important then time on an online chess game.  I recently lost a game where I had a 24 hours clock, not because I didnt know what my next move would be or because I sat there and stared at the screen for 24 hours, but because chess.com went down for one hour at the time I would've made my play and I didnt stay up to wait for it to come back online.  The next day I left the house early and stayed out all day, by the time I got home my clock was gone.  If this was a sit down game I'd understand time negatively affecting me, but in a game that I fit in between the other things in my life, time could have a serious affect in your rating when it shouldnt.

AlecKeen wrote: Becca wrote: Rating has its place but its not the most important thing. Sometimes you can lose a game on time and it will seriously affect your rating this has nothing to do with how well you play.

---

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.

---

 So basically what you're saying is:

 

Football is a game.  Football is timed.

Chess is also a game.  Therefore, chess should also be timed. 

 

You've got me convinced.

Question:    Chess.com rating = USDF rating

   How does the Chess.com rating compare to the USCF rating.  Right now I am at a whopping 1300 on Chess.com (impressive, I know).  So what would that get me in USCF? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

thehomelessguy wrote:

Question:    Chess.com rating = USDF rating

   How does the Chess.com rating compare to the USCF rating.  Right now I am at a whopping 1300 on Chess.com (impressive, I know).  So what would that get me in USCF? 

---

 I would like to know the same thing. I never played USCF rated games, and I can't believe I would end up with an around 1800 rating there too?

"Question:    Chess.com rating = USDF rating"

 

This has already been asked and answered in another thread.  

likesforests wrote:

"Question:    Chess.com rating = USDF rating"

 

This has already been asked and answered in another thread.  

---

 thank you :)

mznor wrote:

In playing my first game on Chess.com, I received a rating of 1200, before I played. Why, and how was that arrived at?

---

I also want to known how was, I assume that every player should be play with the computer and then rating should be define by that game result. How do you think?