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. 

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!!!!!!!!

i dont get it

 

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?   

Also, I have gotten several draws, about 6, I think because I either stayed in the game when most really good players would have resigned, even though they would lose points.  I received points for the stalemate, "draw", which is better any day than a resignation in my book.  Though to stay in the game is to risk almost certain checkmate, you could possibly get a draw.  Why lose points when you can gain points?  Maybe the checkmate is a scar on your record so some players just resign rather than to grub it out and actually make points in a draw.  Is a draw worse than a checkmate or a resignation?  Points are too often the only object rather than actually learning the game and just having fun.  I think the road to being a really good player is to learn regardless of losing your spotless "no checkmate" record.  I don't really blame players who have the tendency to resign if they have already achieved competentcy.  It really is a personal choice, and I have gotten bored myself and just resigned, but at this point I don't plan on asking anyone else to.  Thanks,  Chess.com.  I am having a lot of fun.    

I'm a bit suspicious... My current rating is almost 1600. It just can't be correct. But still, I just beat a 1500 player, and I have slaughtered several 1200-1300 players. On the other hand, my rating on FICS (just to name one) is ca 1000, and my RD is much much lower there. Then again, thats a blitz rating... I just don't know what to make of this. Is there any way to see the RD here without getting a premium membership?

The only problem I see with the rating system is that the odds you get when playing against newly registered users (with 1200) when you have like 1600.  Since they haven't played any games, you could easilly run into a player who's real elo is 2000. And against an opponent like that, you should get much better point "odds" - but when you loose your rating will drop like 200, and if you win it will only go up like 20... Even when he's a lot better than you. On the other hand, if that player has already played 10 games instead of 0, his chess.com rating will probably be around 2000 - and then you can play against him with good odds. Anyone get my point here?

mackandstella wrote: 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

---

 And your chess teacher is right. A queen is worth 9. That is also the value she has on chess.com

NotAGM (post #145) - I got 1545 on the 'fair ELO' link http://www.chessmaniac.com/ELORating/ELO_Chess_Rating.shtml- not bad really, given that's where my rating has tended to gravitate towards (am currently 1654, but a historic high and a little misleading - players at this level on this site are generally better than me)

o0obruceleeo0o wrote: So the reason Kasparov is better than me is because his rating is higher than mine?

---

 no.the reason kasparov is better than you is because hed beat you in less than twenty moves.:P

Hi Everyone! Me too, When I started playing online chess in here. I got 1200 ratings.

ratings just give you a idea how good a player is

justice_avocado wrote: 1361 is higher than 1200. this isn't golf.

---

hahahahahahaha

Ratings aren't as important as learning new things. Not on chess.com anyway.

karlwig wrote:

The only problem I see with the rating system is that the odds you get when playing against newly registered users (with 1200) when you have like 1600.  Since they haven't played any games, you could easilly run into a player who's real elo is 2000. And against an opponent like that, you should get much better point "odds" - but when you loose your rating will drop like 200, and if you win it will only go up like 20... Even when he's a lot better than you. On the other hand, if that player has already played 10 games instead of 0, his chess.com rating will probably be around 2000 - and then you can play against him with good odds. Anyone get my point here?

---

A necessary evil?  I don't think there is any other way around this problem.  You will just have to win those points back from someone else.

Yes this is about right but you have to remember that a bishop can cover more squares than a knight and you can mate with 2 bishops but not with 2 knights. Therefore a bishop is generally considered a little bit better especially if the game gets towards the end-game. If you had a situation where one side had a knight and a few pawns and the other had a bishop and the same number of pawns, the percentages would be in favour of the bishop. The better the player the better the chances of getting  a draw.....the knight cannot make a mistake!

i want to play chess in tournaments.....how it possible..... please help me

Prad, welcome. If they don't have chess tourneys locally for you, this might be your best option. Go to the tournament section and just join one. If you are a talkative person, tell your opponents and maybe you can make new friends and learn from them too.

Good luck 

I was playing chess since i was 6 yrs old ,chess is a mind freshing game

i get your point now