In playing my first game on Chess.com, I received a rating of 1200, before I played. Why, and how was that arrived at?

1200 is supposed to be the average rating in the elo rating system, so most chess playing websites start all players at 1200.

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!

http://math.bu.edu/people/mg/glicko/glicko.doc/glicko.html 

Why then did I go down from 1200 (to 1361) when I beat someone who has a rating above 1200 (1089)?? Admittedly don't have time to read the article... but hoping someone knows how this works anyway!

1361 is higher than 1200. this isn't golf.

what?

I read the article, but I haven't taken any calculus classes and I don't know how to calculate some of the formulas.  Can someone please explain it?

basically:

everyone starts out with a rating and a variable that determines how accurate your rating is. if you haven't played any games, then that variable is HUGE and allows your rating to swing more aggressively. but if you have played 1,000 games all very recently, then you have a low variable, so your rating will move more slowly. also, your opponent's variable matters. if they have a very loose variable, your rating will move less than if they have a tight variable. 

:) 

Cheers Erik! Thought a rating of 1 would be the best!

Think I might need a handicap...

wow ppl

just play

ratings dont even matter

Well actually they do, otherwise we'd all be equal with Kasparov. Only we wouldn't get the chance to play him to find out. Well not all of us anyway.

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

Ratings just really give you a idea of how strong of a players you are over a period of games,  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.

Too true Hunadora. Last season i had to play for our first team, as they were short of players that night, against someone graded 1632. My grading by the way was 1288 ( 344 points lower ). Anyway, because he thought i was an easy win, started doing things that he wouldn't have done against a stonger player, such as castling when he should of, etc...Anyway, he ended up losing, and then to top it off, started having a hissy fit strop by accusing me of messing with the clock during his move ( both on the flag ). Luckily everyone who'd finished was watching our game, and promply corrected him that nothing of the like occured.

Haha people can often be "overrated" or "underrated", a rating isn't always the most accurate measure of a player's playing strength, in my opinion, because it majorly takes into account the no. of games you play! If Kasparov only played one game a year when he was 2750, for e.g., he'll probably take forever to reach 28++. If you play more, your rating can increase OR decrese faster. So don't take rating seriously! What's most important is to enjoy the game. Take rating as an incentive but not everything =)

Rating has its place but its not the most important thing. Sometimes you can lose a game on time and it will seriously affect your rating this has nothing to do with how well you play.

i am starting to understand the rating system, but how do you determine points during a game? are certain peices worth different points? 

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

Becca wrote: Rating has its place but its not the most important thing. Sometimes you can lose a game on time and it will seriously affect your rating this has nothing to do with how well you play.

---

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.

AlecKeen wrote:Becca wrote:Rating has its place but its not the most important thing. Sometimes you can lose a game on time and it will seriously affect your rating this has nothing to do with how well you play.

---

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.