GM Gerog Meier and IM Danny Rensch review Carlsen v Anand NOW on Chess/TV Open to ALL MEMBERS! Click here to watch!
Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Chess rating system


  • 3 years ago · Quote · #1181

    Ziggyblitz

    I checked the rating adjustment for a game against an opponent rated 320 points below me, and was surprised to find that a loss costs me 20 points.  I've lost to players rated even lower and it hasn't cost me as much, usually 17~19 points.

    I can only guess that the reason is because of my opponent has a low Glicko RD which is 43, as he is a very active player.  Most opponents have an RD of around 60.  Shows the subtley of the Glicko at work. 

    I wonder what the lowest RD ever reached on chess.com is ?

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #1182

    tommcgrath

    yes me 2

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #1183

    tommcgrath

    Dodger111 wrote:
    oldbones wrote:

    yes definetly d best !!! u r (wink wink he not the best)


     Oh yes I yam....i got like 10 wins an one loss or something, that's like supar good

    wow well get yuor ratinjg higher and you weill be the best

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #1184

    chessmaster299o

    Wow, just that simple sentence or two recieved 15+ pages of comments.Smile

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #1185

    GordieSea

    Ii think the knight should be worth 3.5 relative to the bishop being worth 3.0.
  • 3 years ago · Quote · #1186

    arborvitian

    Hunadora wrote:
    But i think we have all have games where we played much weaker players and blew the game by not thinking as well as we should.

    I do!  I do!

    I went up against this one guy I never expected to beat in my wildest dreams, and I won three times in a row.  On the other side of the ledger, I completely screwed up and lost to someone who had a queen and a half dozen or so pawns against a king and three, and couldn't work out how to put me out of my misery.

    I should have tried harder to draw that last game.  Oh well.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #1187

    Ziggyblitz

    ChristianSoldier007 wrote:

    actually someone did get zero, i don't remember who


    A zero rating would be achievable but you'd most likely need to cheat by using multiple accounts.  This would be the reverse of using multiple accounts to boost your rating.  I can't see anyone ever bothering to do such a useless thing.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #1188

    Ziggyblitz

    waffllemaster wrote:

    It's more like a 1700 FIDE rating is a 2000 chess.com turn-based rating.

    Live chess is a bit closer I think, but I don't play here much either, and some of the ratings have changed.


    Everything I've read on chess.com says that comparisons between different rating systems/pools are very difficult to make.  However I also read that FIDE ratings are on average, 200~300 points LOWER than chess.com turn-based.  Same as Chess 960 ratings are on average 300~400 points lower than standard turned-based ratings, (different pools of players + less games played).

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #1189

    fasttime

    A rating can give you sort of weakness . Do not look at the opponent's rating when

    you play, find a way to cover it up so it   does not matter anymore.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #1190

    Ziggyblitz

    fasttime wrote:

    A rating can give you sort of weakness . Do not look at the opponent's rating when

    you play, find a way to cover it up so it   does not matter anymore.


    I agree.  However I know that I can lose to players rated way below me and win against players rated above me, so I always try to play carefully...and you never know if and when your opponent decides to use some engine assistance.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #1191

    MuskieMan33

    How about the different game types and the points associated with those?
    I was wondering if anyone could break this down for me, I'm a little confused as to why a 10 min game I only get 15-30 points, and then I play a 15|10 game and will get 100+ points for a win... Is it that because I'm not an extremely high rated player? Or is it a combination of who I play, their rank, my rank, and how the game plays out (ie. if I lose with a majority of my pieces remaining on the board or lose with just my king on the board).

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #1192

    AndyClifton

    It's doubtless because you've played far less games in Standard.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #1193

    DavidMertz1

    MuskieMan33 wrote:

    How about the different game types and the points associated with those?
    I was wondering if anyone could break this down for me, I'm a little confused as to why a 10 min game I only get 15-30 points, and then I play a 15|10 game and will get 100+ points for a win... Is it that because I'm not an extremely high rated player? Or is it a combination of who I play, their rank, my rank, and how the game plays out (ie. if I lose with a majority of my pieces remaining on the board or lose with just my king on the board).

    The pieces on the board do not matter.  What matters is your rating vs the rating of your opponent, and how accurate the algorithm thinks the ratings of you and your opponent are.  For example, if your opponent has played very few games recently, your rating will not move as much because their rating may not be as accurate.  But if YOU have not played many games recently, then your rating will move MORE because YOUR rating is deemed to be less accurate.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #1194

    MuskieMan33

    Alright, thank you for the clarification David. For the record, what is "standard"? I usually play 10 or 15 min games.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #1195

    DavidMertz1

    Bullet rating - For games under 3 minutes.

    Blitz rating - For games of 3 minutes to 14 minutes.

    Standard rating - For games 15 minutes and longer.

    For details, look here:  http://support.chess.com/Knowledgebase/Article/View/94/0/why-are-there-three-different-ratings-in-live-chess

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #1196

    MuskieMan33

    David, I appreciate you answeing my question, as well as posting a link. That cleared it up for me.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #1197

    Rachel-Kiel

    Great, so I don't have to start at 0!

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #1198

    cinder3dx

    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • 3 years ago · Quote · #1199

    cinder3dx

    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • 3 years ago · Quote · #1200

    nahtanos

    ^_^


Back to Top

Post your reply: