If you check out the Glicko formula you'll realise this is caused by different RDs (rating deviations). To put it in simple terms, a player who plays often has a more accurate rating than someone who plays occassionaly. They therefore have a lower RD and their rating will change less after each game, because it's considered to be fairly accurate.
Because your opponent's rating was considered more accurate (he had a lower RD), it changed less than yours.
If you check out the Glicko formula you'll realise this is caused by different RDs (rating deviations). To put it in simple terms, a player who plays often has a more accurate rating than someone who plays occassionaly. They therefore have a lower RD and their rating will change less after each game, because it's considered to be fairly accurate.
Because your opponent's rating was considered more accurate (he had a lower RD), it changed less than yours.
seems reasonable!!!
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 agree with you fischer, she is talking about blitz (/ live chess).
According to me,what Becca wanted to say is "our rating does not state how good or bad we play but it depends on our playing rate( It is just a yard stick). WE NEED TO LOOK AT IT(rating) IN ORDER TO IMPROVE US and rather it should not discourage us."
I play at a club and some peolpe prefer the queen to 2 rooks. I tend to think they are actually equal. Also, what is better, knight or bishop? I trained with a 2350 master for about a month and he said bishop, but I think it is mainly a personal preference because there are others at the club that prefer knight. Any opinions? ...and don't say it depends on position, that is obvious, I'm speaking generally.
Generally, bishops are better than knights in the endgame and knights are better than bishops in the middle game.This is because the bishop is will usually not have as many productive moves in the middle game than the knight (because of forks and whatnot) and can be blocked off from the game by your pawns or your opponent's pawns. The knight, on the other hand, can jump over a pawn blockade and is a better tactical piece. In the endgame, square control is everything. It's also what the knight lacks when compared to the bishop. It's important to control as many squares as possible and be able to hold key squares in the endgame. A bishop (of the right color) will have an advantage over a knight because it can control more squares, is harder for a king to kick off in order to queen a pawn, and is better at capturing pawns sitting in a diagonal, as is a normal pawn position in the endgame. The bishop's broader scope can stop pawns at a distance.
Also, if you're playing a closed game, knights are better. They can go right past the pawn wall and break through the defenses while a bishop of the wrong color will just sit there with nothing to do. If you're playing an open game, bishops are better.This is because the amount of squares that the bishop can move to are increased in an open game. The bishop can cover longer diagonals and actually help your attack in the middle game as well as the end game. The knight is a slower piece than a bishop (meaning it takes a while for it to go from a1 to h8 when a bishop can do it in one move) . Consequently, knights are more prone to capture in open games. In an open game, every piece except for the knight, king, and pawns, gets stronger. Your opponent's rooks can more easily find an open file and attack or trap your ideally placed knight.
I play at a club and some peolpe prefer the queen to 2 rooks. I tend to think they are actually equal. Also, what is better, knight or bishop? I trained with a 2350 master for about a month and he said bishop, but I think it is mainly a personal preference because there are others at the club that prefer knight. Any opinions? ...and don't say it depends on position, that is obvious, I'm speaking generally.
See my note above - if rooks are worth 4 points, not 5 as is commonly taught in the west, then a Queen (9pts) is preferable to 2 rooks - although this is a generalisation and can vary in individual positions.
1200 is your default!
1200 is your default!
Thats right! But Queen is the most powerful in weilding might in all directions..
Wow, this thread is like the bristlecone pine of chess.com:
Wow, this thread is like the bristlecone pine of chess.com:
which one do you mean!!!!!
I think you've got that backwards...
Strength and experience determine the rating. 
Sure...we are now friends.
As to knight and bishop, which is better? I think eveyone is correct. But to sum it up, the diagram below speaks for the bishop:
Try it the other way, there's no way a knight can trap a bishop all by itself.
It's still a dead draw though (I understand how it would be useful is some pawns were on the board, and the knight couldn't get to them). A knight can block a lot more pawns though (as long as they're on one side) and can reach all squares.
It's still a dead draw though (I understand how it would be useful is some pawns were on the board, and the knight couldn't get to them). A knight can block a lot more pawns though (as long as they're on one side) and can reach all squares.
Knights can't neccesarily block more pawns than bishops, even if they are on the same side of the board as the knight.
I (1828) lost a game to somebody (1612)
I lost 19 points, he only gained 11, sounds a bit unfair to both of us