12697 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!
ozshmbal wrote: Ratings -- a measuring stick -- that's it When I had a rating below 2000 I would challenge a player above that level and get a pathetic message like 'Oops! this player doesn't play anyone below 2000. You know why! Because they're scared of losing their precious little rating points. They would be better off selling insurance, there is more security doing that. Oops is a jellyfish burp!
So you can get to play opponents higher rated than you, go take part in a tournament. I hope that helps
I love the rating system.
254 losses to 150 wins and my rating is 1570. I have been playing on a consistant basis for about 8 months and by playing as many high rated players as possible I have become much better at reading the development of lines as well as a respectable increase to my rating all the while having a terrible win/loss ratio. If I continue like I am, I am sure that I will achieve a 2000 rating within two years; but only if I curb my impulsiveness at critical moments.
I am new here. I kind of understand the rating system, but how do people get points?
play the game ratings don't really matter
mine is 1006, but most games i loose are on blunders, I can loose on a guy 1400 one day and win against a 2100 the other. What i dont like is that It wont let me join tournaments
Chess is Life in Pieces, once you treat your minor pieces in the same way as you treat the major ones, you succeed. This implies that in life, you have to treat people in the same way you would like to treat you especially in Chess. Therefore, once you lose to a guy of 1400, this shows how he treated like a Grandmaster and therefore focused to excellent play and won.
Simply, also treat any 1400 guy as a Grandmaster and you will make less mistakes, you will not lose again.
The main reason why am discussing with you about this is, most Grandmasters once started below 1400, while a 2100 treats you like how you treat a 1400 guy.
Most champions were once like you until they moved on.
Play hard and make it to the tournaments because there is one main thing that separates a Grandmaster from a 1400 guy, is the way the playing principles are followed during the opening, the middlegame, and the end game.
MUSCALU, YOU ARE A VERY STRONG TOURNAMENT PLAYER, BELIEVE IN YOUR SELF AND GIVE A TRY.
Greywolf - if I got ure ? right the answer is by making contributions to Forums etc., note your post query has already credited you one point!
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
Nice post Mubiro. Very true. I won a game today against someone ranked much higher than me. I also lost to someone ranked much lower. I dont think I played the same way against both. I didn't take the lower ranked opponent as serious, and lost. I hope I learn from this. We'll see.
The long & short of it is... use your ranking as a way to guage your progress, and try not to get too caught up with how high or low. Just enjoy. I dont know if I'm posting this for you, the reader, or for me.
Actually, I never understood rating and how it was calculated till i read this simply wonderful article, dont get put off by the equation right at the start :-) (i didnt understand it - am not good at equations), it doesnt matter: http://www.chess.com/article/view/chess-ratings---how-they-work
The Glicko rating system is very interesting, although it took me a few reads to really understand how it worked. viswanathan pointed out some of the configurations of this system that I love so much. Erik wrote an interesting piece on the subject if I remember correctly. Hunadora makes a very valid and interesting point regarding rating systems. Since a rating system looks at the overall picture it often doesn't account for the minute details of incredibly well played games and really dumb blunders (of which I have made many - dumb blunders. I only get credit for one great game so far, but the level of intoxication achieved by my opponent probably accounts for my momentary genius).
I find the hardest thing for any mathematical formula/software program to do is accounting for the infinite number of subtle highs and lows in our tactics and game. It's simply the nature of mathematics. You cannot have a one size fits all formula, but this is off topic and better reserved for my next blog.
EVeryone starts at 1200
I don't even bother with ratings. My rating has pretty much just gone down since I started and I don't care. You can just play unrated. Sometimes I do. (I think it's less stressful, so I can have more fun. Besides, that's why I'm playing - not for ratings)
I tend to agree with percheron. I play because I love that game. I'm not particularly good at it, but I enjoy it. I get the fact that we are ego driven animals and need to feed the ego, but sometimes it becomes too much. I like playing an unrated game, not because I'm so bad that it's the only game I can play, but because it's pure enjoyment. Of course, I was told by someone here that if I played better I might appriciate the rating system. This was the same guy that claimed that a kid dropped on his head had a better system of tactics. My reply? I just laughed it off. Come on, play for the love of the game. However, if rating systems are important to you the system used here is absolutely great! Read the article on it twice and take notes. You'll see that it is an incredibly accurate system that covers most of the nuances of a point based system.
I don't think of ratings as a way to show how good you are at chess, they're a way to put people of different skills with those of their own level. I think if I'm not very good, my rating will go down, and I can put in a lower maximum rating in my games. That way I can have fun playing people of my own level.
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.
But then, presumably, they would continue to play those rated higher then them, but by the same margain, giving them back the higher rating that they lost. Great article at the beginning...though very confusing.
That is the entire point to ratings. To match up players with other individuals playing at the same level. Again, there are times when the rating system cannot cover all of the factors of human game play. If the novice player suddenly hits upon a combination of moves that changes the game in his or her favor, but it's a one time only situation (say, for example because the player just read some on this tactic and will soon forget it after the game), this will be reflected but may raise the player's rating prematurely. By this I mean that the player in question might play the next rated game poorly enough to loose more points that were gained in the previous game. I guess what I'm saying is that any rating system, no matter how sophisticated, will have mathematical flaws in it because it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to completely account for human flaws and emotional playing within a finite equation. Now I really don't want to play rated games. I've given myself a headache with all this finite mathematical nonsense! Oh Yuk! Ignore all the typos, English was not my major (or even minor) in school.
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.
Thqat makes no sense at all. Just because one game is timed, every other game should be timed? Nonsense! To prove something, you have to know that it is true in ALL cases, not only one. I started playing chess without a timer when I learned. If you and your opponent agree that there is no time limit, then there is no time limit! Of course, Chess.com does not allow that, but playing against people in real life and doing so with no time constraints doesn't wreck the game.
Chess is not about intelligence
by jiylor a few minutes ago
CONTEST: Caption this Image of Anand & Carlsen
by catvomit 5 minutes ago
How To Make A DGT Chessboard & Chessmen
by owltuna 7 minutes ago
Hawks Art Deco Circa 1930s-1940s Chess Clock
by goodknightmike 11 minutes ago
Based on what basis the tournament creator can removed a player
by pt22064 22 minutes ago
Scotch and Soda
by batgirl 22 minutes ago
December 1, 2013. Mate in 7
by BigDoggProblem 23 minutes ago
by Sangwin 23 minutes ago
Carlsen is mediocre - my analyses
by badger_song 24 minutes ago
October 30, 2013. Mate in 3
by rachelb0987 32 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 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!