Chess rating system

thanks always wanted to know that too

well done

Two rooks are better than a queen if they can coordinate.

A bishop is usually very slightly better than a knight because even if a position is closed, it is likely to open eventually.

Rooks are worth about 5 pawns, not 4.

Nope. You have the causation reversed: Kasparov's rating is higher than yours because he is better than you. 

Ratings are an objective measure of your playing strength based on past performance. Of course, that's not to say that ratings systems are flawless, or even that the Glicko system is. Objective as it is, it still has its problems.

For one thing, it is static. It simply gives a snapshot; it doesn't account for whether you are on the way up or on the way down.

Similarly, it doesn't factor in a player's age. Typically younger players are much stronger than their playing strength would suggest. For older players, though, rating is a pretty accurate measure of strength.

Another flaw: ratings measure overall strength, not strength in a specific aspect of the game. So a player could have a near-master-level positional understsanding, but be really bad at tactics, or suffer from momentary lapses of concentration.

But at the end of the day, it is nice to have some measure of playing strength so you know who to match up with to get a good, competitive game.

A rather weird datum.

are the points of the pieces have something to do with the rating system?

 value of pieces contribute to the ratings you earn or lose.

I haven't read all 55 pages, but this is a fascinating subject.  I have only been playing internet chess for a few weeks, after not playing at all for years.  It is interesting to see my rating move up as my tactical play sharpens (my positional understanding is not too bad).

Interestingly, I used to be a regular table tennis tournament player.  The rating system is based on the chess system.  My experience is that ratings definitely do indicate a general level of play, and that generally the higher rated player will win, even if the difference in rating is only 50 points. 

Another factor is that some players are much better in club play or in tournament play, as the pressure of the tournament and concern over ratings causes some players to do poorly and others to thrive.  To some exent a rating reflects not only a player's ability, but also that player's ability to handle pressure.

Thanks a lot for that.

So then, if say I made a move sacrificing a piece or two, as part of a well perceived and accurate combination, which led me to winning the game quickly. How would then my rating differ, given the same game, had I have taken the alternate moves (i.e. without the sacrifice), but still ended up winning? Which one would earn me the higher points.

 Well, if you win your rating will go up in both case. If you could win over an opponent having a lower rating,your earning will be less  and if your opponent was having a higher rating than yours, then your earning will be high. Much of this may depend on the terms of the game opening shown on the console.

  thats what we all cry for !!

  O K !

The system manages the allocation of the two players. Therefore you have an opponent with a quite equal strength.

  wonderful quote!!

If this repeats anything previously said, then I apologize, but there's NO WAY I'm reading through 55 pages of posts!  On the general topic of ratings, I think there must be some sort of discrepancy in the rating of the problems on Tactics Trainer and the rating you get from playing online games.  My online rating here at chess.com hovers between 1200 and 1300, however, I hover between 800 and 900 rating on Tactics Trainer!  That's just too huge of a difference.

This is my own experience: When I am playing games, I have a plan.  When I am doing Tactics Trainer, I am on the clock, plunged into a position I did not create and so have not been thinking about.  When I improve on Tactics Trainer, I improve in my games as well, and as a result, have a higher rating.  So far, my Tactics Trainer score has always been a few hundred points below my online rating, but as the points go up in Tactics Trainer, the rating points go up in online chess.  It makes sense to me.  :)

when i first started the tactics trainer, my rating plummetted but soon i got used to the format...now i have an idea of what i should be doing because i have completed similar problems before....of course, sometimes i miss the obvious and fail but that is chess......

 u r ok !!

 appriciate !!!

 may be nearest approximate also!!