ratings are kinda like the collage football rating system for example if some small collage like apilichian state beats va tech there ranking would drastically increase but techs would drastically decrease. learn the value of the pieces and as you play you will learn the better the position of the peices the more they are valued at that pituclar time. like if you had a infantry solder high on a hill and some navy seal at the foot of the clif trying to attack him the battle would kind of even out , whereas if they were on leval ground the seal would have a far better advantage of skill and power.
Chess rating system
Sort:
Your account may be restricted if you do not follow our Fair Play Policy. If restricted, you will only be able to play with friends. Please do not intentionally abort/disconnect from games or make your opponents wait unnecessarily. Thank you for keeping Chess.com a fun place to enjoy chess!
Please tell me why? i'd never lie every one in the fight
I haven't got a rating but i have played one or two online/live chess games, do i have to win them in order to get a rating or do i have to play more?
You do have a rating. Scroll down your live and on line page and look at "current". If you run your cursor over your name above it will show your live rating.
I honestly have never cared for a rating and never will. The strength of a player is all in their head. One who plays well plays well, and one who does not, will lose. That's my philosophy, and I have never deterred from it. Now ratings can give you a general idea of the strength of a player, but they can never be the thing that dictates our strength. Just look at GM Walter Brown losing to a 1500 player on the Ruy Lopez Berlin Wall Fishing Pole trap. It's inituition, quickness, tactics, and strategy that win games.
BLS-Envoy wrote:
I honestly have never cared for a rating and never will. The strength of a player is all in their head. One who plays well plays well, and one who does not, will lose. That's my philosophy, and I have never deterred from it. Now ratings can give you a general idea of the strength of a player, but they can never be the thing that dictates our strength. Just look at GM Walter Brown losing to a 1500 player on the Ruy Lopez Berlin Wall Fishing Pole trap. It's inituition, quickness, tactics, and strategy that win games.
its all the good u said!!
@BLS, what you say is correct with the underlying phrase being 'that ratings do not dictate ones strengh'. They are an indicator and help greatly in tourneys when players are matched up. Having said that, there are always the mis-matches and these are the ones that have the potential to create upsets and so often do.
I did say that were indicators.
As did I in statement # 1170!
Damn, this is a long thread. ;P
mznor wrote:
In playing my first game on Chess.com, I received a rating of 1200, before I played. Why, and how was that arrived at?
dont play WET GLOVES>he is very unprofessional
VietnamGotTalent wrote:
Your account may be restricted if you do not follow our Fair Play Policy. If restricted, you will only be able to play with friends. Please do not intentionally abort/disconnect from games or make your opponents wait unnecessarily. Thank you for keeping Chess.com a fun place to enjoy chess!
Please tell me why? i'd never lie every one in the fight
hey u got the right criteria of a good chess fighter as u will never tell a lie!! hats off !!!
invisible1 wrote:
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 =)
Indeed a chess rating does not really measure "Chess Strength" because such a thing does not even exist. All it does is measure past performance. End of story.
The only thing that matters in Chess is the moves on the board. Never let a number or a title defeat you or let it intimidate you in anyway. Again, all that matters is the moves on the board.
Best moves is key to win.
I was going to mention the difference in the ratings you can get on different chess sites, but there are so many variables, including how much time you devote to the games, that comparisons are meaningless.
irrawang wrote:
I was going to mention the difference in the ratings you can get on different chess sites, but there are so many variables, including how much time you devote to the games, that comparisons are meaningless.
variables may be sort of recipe but devotion and correct move remains there as pivotal!!
Mikemacka wrote:
mznor wrote:
In playing my first game on Chess.com, I received a rating of 1200, before I played. Why, and how was that arrived at?
dont play WET GLOVES>he is very unprofessional
Try to avoid wet gloves!! appriciate. Rating 1200 was a standard starting point!! U need to accept a certain point to be ur stand to start.Pl go thru CHESS .COM'S introductory discussion by Erik on the top of this forum page to make ur understanding certain.
Rafchess wrote:
Best moves is key to win.
Computer analysis most often gives my games 30+% of inaccuracies, mistakes and blunders, and yet I am rated in the top 2% (turn-based). Players rated 2200+ still make their share of mistakes. When I am stuck for a good move, I try to avoid making a really bad move. Making the "best moves" constantly is a pipe dream.
Ratings are an indicator of a players' strengh and do matter in a sense where in a tourney of different formats eg the swiss, you are more likely to be paired up with an opponent in your ratings range. This applies to online and otb matches. Also, if you find yourself paired up with someone, say 200 elo points above your own, you can expect a damned tough match, which you're more likely to loose than not. By the same token if he/she is 200 elo points below yours, then it might not be so bad. That is not to say that you shouldn't respect them all the same, because they can still beat you. I've just played 2 matches against a higher rated player, lost the first one miserably, ie. crashed and burned, but won the second in convincing style. He may very well have underestimated me and eased off a bit. It's a win I'm proud of. So you see ratings do matter, especially when you play against people over the 2000 elo points, it's like a different league.