11867 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!
Well I love chess.com, but I have to critizice one thing that has to do with ratings. The rating adjustment adjusts itself to the actual rating when you end the game, I believe it should be adjusted according to the rating players had when the game began.
You might wonder why?, well let's say I have 1200 rating and start a game against a 1500 player, while this game lasts I lose 5 games and decrease my rating to 900. Then I win against the 1500 guy and increase to 1300. That seems somehow unfair to me because the 1500 guy didn't expect to lose 400 rating points against a 1200. This also works the other way around, that is if the 1200 guy increases to 1600 and then wins his fisrt game against the 1500, then he will only gain a few points, when he should win more for having faced a much higher rank opponent at first.
The second thing is that many people, because of this, resign early from games they believe might lose, so that their rating decreases and then win another game against higher rated opponents and increase their ratings excessively.
I hope you understand my points, please get back to tell me what you think.
I'm not really sure that what you said is right-no offense. But it does make sense.
I have read many of the articles re ratings but none seem to addres the question of what percentile each raing falls into.
A table would be more precise, but the info is essentially there in the rating graph:
we had it that way to start i believe, and then changed it. no matter which way we do it somebody will like it the other way :) i like it the way it is because a rating is an approximation of your strength, and the most RECENT rating is the most accurate. it isn't about managing your rating - it's about having an accurate rating.
I'm not too sure what Mikee is saying here. If the inference is that chess is only for fun and practise, then they should play another game. Chess is a war game. There is no fun in war...only the enemy. We are not practising anything..we are analysing what our opponent is doing and trying to outmanoevre them. Perhaps the word "enjoyable" would be more apt than fun. Chess is a serious game to be enjoyed.
I have a real life chess rating, and it is way, way lower than the one here. I have spoken to a few players, and they all report the same rating inflation. There is a trick you can use if you want to inflate your rating further - never play anyone with a low rating -- you can loose big time, they can only gain --- ever noticed the not less than massive rating requests? - OK I suppose if you are that good, perhaps playing us mere mortals is a bit below them, but as far as I'm concerned it does not matter, it's a just a game --- or is it?????
Here's a link I think gives a fairer estimate ... http://www.chessmaniac.com/ELORating/ELO_Chess_Rating.shtml
turtle, the general points system followed is as follows:
pawn - 1pt.
knight/bishop - 3pts.
rook - 5pts.
queen - 10pts.
of course points are not everything... the position of your piece also matters.. for example you might not mind losing a bishop or rook to save a pawn on the 7th row.. and points dont have any bearing on the game result.. it is just a basic framework to help beginners understand the value of different pieces
My chess teacher has taught me a queens is worth 9
O pai já vai!!
MAs podem crer k o pai ja vai msm!!
Come on FC PORTOOOOOOOOOOO.......let´s put schalke 04 out of order!!!
i agree i played 4 cornwall mens this year against devon im not actually fide rated but im ecf'd at about 120 and i was playin a 150 he thought i was gonna be easy so he got into a dodgy nimzo indian as white and i fought and got a draw
That is so true, I once had to give up a knight and a rook to gain position for the mate that I got within the next couple of moves... I was proud of myself. lol But I've been told to keep in mind that having two bishops is more powerful than one bishop and one knight and likewise two bishops are stronger than two knights. I'm guessing because the two bishops can command both colors and this always isn't the case with two knights. Any thoughts on this? I think I'd personally rather have 2 bishops rather than two knights.
My Chess teacher says the Queen is 9 points!!!!!!!!
i dont get it
by baddogno a few minutes ago
How Lonnnnnnnng Untilllllllll V3???
by JamieDelarosa 4 minutes ago
What if you went to a live tournament and no one came except for you?
by EragonShadeslayer03 7 minutes ago
Are tactics really the way to go?
by X_PLAYER_J_X 11 minutes ago
What's the best way to become a chess prodigy as an adult?
by Elubas 12 minutes ago
Why does nobody play 1. c3?
by Ed_Seedhouse 15 minutes ago
5/28/2015 - Mate in 3
by tiantianzhao 20 minutes ago
Positional Play: What is it, really? Show us an example
by Elubas 24 minutes ago
Review: Official Staunton 1865 Ebonized and Boxwood Chess Set
by rcmacmillan 25 minutes ago
Who taught you chess? When did you first start playing?
by bb_gum234 28 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 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!