Chess rating system

Anand could join chess.com and he'd start out at 1200.

yeah even tho he is good ?

i need practice so someone wanna teach me?

Gideon wrote:   One of my friends can only think an average of three moves aheed, but I can't seem to beet him in blitz!!  

If you could calculate accurately three full moves ahead on a consistent basis you would be a very strong player.

lol

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

Hallo Muscalu,

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.

Thanks,

Mubiru Kizito.

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!

 queen=9 pts

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.