Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Chess rating system


  • 7 years ago · Quote · #101

    Reprise

    dbalanza2 wrote:

    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.

  • 7 years ago · Quote · #102

    Loomis

    stdavid wrote:

    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:

    http://www.chess.com/echess/players.html 


  • 7 years ago · Quote · #103

    littleman

    Anything above 1800 on this is site considered good i believe because it thins out from there fast.as for y the player went up so high its because he played a player over 1700+ and won thats y the 500+ points because it figures he must be good to win so needed to be adjusted to match untill he loses and eventualy we all do it will balance out in time anyway....Cool
  • 7 years ago · Quote · #104

    erik

    tooeasy1 wrote: dbalanza2 wrote:

    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.


     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. 


  • 7 years ago · Quote · #105

    stdavid

    mikii wrote: is this rating stuff real, i mean,can i go on tournaments if i have 20+ or higher.Can i get a real rating with that.Second ,does someone watching this,in order to find a people who played a good chess,or it is only just for fun!And practise!

     

  • 7 years ago · Quote · #106

    stdavid

    stdavid wrote: mikii wrote: is this rating stuff real, i mean,can i go on tournaments if i have 20+ or higher.Can i get a real rating with that.Second ,does someone watching this,in order to find a people who played a good chess,or it is only just for fun!And practise!

    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.


     

  • 7 years ago · Quote · #107

    Aristokatt

    I think my rateing is influnced far more by the amount of sleep I getTongue out
  • 7 years ago · Quote · #108

    NotAGM

    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

     

     


  • 7 years ago · Quote · #109

    mackandstella

    viswanathan wrote: turtle wrote: i am starting to understand the rating system, but how do you determine points during a game? are certain peices worth different points? 

    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

  • 7 years ago · Quote · #110

    plrodrigues

    O pai já vai!!

     

  • 7 years ago · Quote · #111

    plrodrigues

    MAs podem crer k o pai ja vai msm!!

     

  • 7 years ago · Quote · #112

    plrodrigues

    Come on FC PORTOOOOOOOOOOO.......let´s put schalke 04 out of order!!!

  • 7 years ago · Quote · #113

    GruntRuski

    Rating is helpful for finding your apropriate match for the day. Whatever class you choose to play for that day.
  • 7 years ago · Quote · #114

    millerthesmurf

    jona004 wrote: Too true Hunadora. Last season i had to play for our first team, as they were short of players that night, against someone graded 1632. My grading by the way was 1288 ( 344 points lower ). Anyway, because he thought i was an easy win, started doing things that he wouldn't have done against a stonger player, such as castling when he should of, etc...Anyway, he ended up losing, and then to top it off, started having a hissy fit strop by accusing me of messing with the clock during his move ( both on the flag ). Luckily everyone who'd finished was watching our game, and promply corrected him that nothing of the like occured.

    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

  • 7 years ago · Quote · #115

    rss_ems

    thanx
  • 7 years ago · Quote · #116

    revolting

    this is a great and interesting post thread. i personally think that i am a good chess player yet i wont play people anymore because i feel too pressured with the psychology that is ratings. they are a paradox as you couldnt have chess without them as there would be no emphasis to win, but myself personally i dont think i can play chess with them. in chess the saying its the taking part that counts could not be less true, as winning is everything, therefore ratings are an integral part of the game.
  • 7 years ago · Quote · #117

    BigStupidFingers

    viswanathan wrote: turtle wrote: i am starting to understand the rating system, but how do you determine points during a game? are certain peices worth different points? 

    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


    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. 


  • 7 years ago · Quote · #118

    jimmersw

    viswanathan wrote: turtle wrote: i am starting to understand the rating system, but how do you determine points during a game? are certain peices worth different points? 

    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 says the Queen is 9 points!!!!!!!!CryTongue out


  • 7 years ago · Quote · #119

    Abarai

    i dont get it

     


  • 7 years ago · Quote · #120

    swordsloop

    I have a question about ratings when you resign instead of wait for the opponent to get the checkmate.  I played someone, I will not say the name, and we neared the end of the game and he asked me to resign.  There was no real way for me to win but I wanted to fight on for as long as I had some pieces on the board.  Although I did wait for some time and I knew the checkmate would be soon it was just useless eventually, so I did resign as he requested.  I looked into his archives and he has never allowed a checkmate that I could see.  Losing not often because he is 1500+ he always resigns before the checkmate or lets the clock run out.  I challenged him for a rematch and he refused typing in the reason that my rating was too low.  Is it normal to get less points against you if you resign than if you wait for the eventual checkmate?  I am just learning but if the outcome is evident and even though I am still studying end game and how to avoid a checkmate and possibly getting a pawn to the other side for a queen, is it advisable to just resign (point wise)?  This doesn't seem like a sportsmanlike thing to do and is a little bit timid to just resign every time.  A lame resignation is so boring even if the GM's do it all the time.  To just let the clock run out is also lame to prevent a checkmate.  Do you get less points taken off to let the clock run out if you are doing badly?   

Back to Top

Post your reply: