11482 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!
no fool can play chess and only fools do
This thread is humourous - i was puzzled at the "Why then did I go down from 1200 (to 1361)" - then i read on and realised that the poster thought ratings were like golf handicaps. Broke into a smile - (i was feeling somewhat tense for reasons not related to websites) - and feeling relaxed - it was theraputic! Thanks, MickBJ!
(the above is meant seriously! i am *not* taking a dig at anyone. Perish the thought...)
I agree with the assertion that ratings do matter to serious players. I do not agree however that OTB ratings have some superior status to correspondence or on-line ratings. Why does he think that people who play correspondence chess or online chess cannot be serious players? Not everyone has the opportunity or time to play otb....I myself have limited time even to play online, but I take each game seriously and give it as much thought as I can within the time available. My rating is not too bad but I would desperately like it to be better.
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.
I try to play differently in blitz games. In long games I try to play (what looks to me through my myopic chess goggles) the best move, whereas in blitz games I try to play moves that make the opponent think
everyone starts at 1200. then as you play you get a new rating. it is all based on the Glicko ratings system :) check it out - it's a fun read!
The problem I have after reading this is Glicko assumes the rating of a player who has been out of the game for a while is not reliable. Let's say that I play chess for 20 years and earn a 1700 rating then stop playing for 20 years. A new prodigy comes up and after 2 years of playing has a 1700 rating but his rating is earned more recently than mine was. That would make the prodigies rating after only two years of play more valid than my rating earned after 20 years of play because I haven't played in 20 years. I could have 1000 professional games under my belt and the young prodigy only 100 so how is my rating less valid than his? I would consider the newer players rating the less reliable because he has fewer games. Time should have no effect on how many points someone gains or loses from a match. If we could bring J.R. Capablanca back from the dead would anyone say that his rating is less valid than Vladimir Kramniks?
I'd like to know what is going on with the tactics trainer rating, if anyone else is amused by how the trainer rating changes, or if it is just me
First I went up to about 1600, then suddenly plunged to 800 in the space of about 2 days, then zoomed back up to 1700 before drifting down to less than 1400, then raced up above 2000 in about 48 hours before drifting back to about 1900
The actual rating is less important than the fact that it seems to be moving all over the place. Is my skill in tactics really changing that much over the space of a couple of weeks (and in some cases a matter of days), or is the tactics trainer on drugs?
Don't get me wrong, I think that the tactics trainer is one of the best features of the site, but I would prefer to see a slow and gradual increase in my rating that reflected a real improvement in my tactics, rather than a completely bonkers, helter-skelter voyage all over the place
i didn't have time to read the posts but i just wanted to know if it wouldn't be better if we ranked instead of rated. this way you will know that on chess.com you are ranked number 1234 (eg.) and not rated 1187 (eg.). what do you think?
i think we already have taht too :)
i know that erik, but what i am saying is that instead of this complicated rating system (seeing that it's accuracy is being questioned) why not just use the ranking system only!!!
inferno, how would you determine everybody's ranking? How do you determine how to change a player's ranking when they win or lose? (don't just say it goes up if you win and down if you lose, the programmers need a precise calculation for it.)
Just because a few people who don't understand the rating system question it's accuracy, we shouldn't scrap a system that is both well founded in math and statistics and tried and true (the glicko rating system is used in other places with much success).
Also, my rating today can be compared to my rating next year. My ranking today might have nothing to do with my ranking a year from now.
Is Chess a 'Creative' Activity?
by ilgambittoo a few minutes ago
5/21/2013 - The Power of Imagination
by szammie a few minutes ago
5/22/2013 - Good Night to the Enemy
by yomajo 2 minutes ago
by Schevenadorf 3 minutes ago
by sertas 7 minutes ago
Fritz 13 help
by ShyamGopal1 7 minutes ago
tactics and composing
by unjustice 9 minutes ago
Why isn't Bishop vs Knight considered to be a material imbalance?
by Irontiger 9 minutes ago
Any good Benko Gambit books?
by ploucroux 18 minutes ago
Help kids learn chess and play with Friends and Family
by FUN_with_CHESS 23 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com