Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Chess rating system


  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1121

    TonyMooney

    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.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1122

    BLS-Envoy

    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. 

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1123

    Rafchess

    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. 


     CoolCoolCool its all the good u said!!

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1124

    Kurt_Stromer

    @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.  

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1125

    BLS-Envoy

    I did say that were indicators. 

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1126

    Kurt_Stromer

    As did I in statement # 1170!

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1127

    BLS-Envoy

    Damn, this is a long thread. ;P

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1128

    Mikemacka

    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

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1129

    Rafchess

    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

     

    Tour Mui Ne


     Winkhey u got the right criteria of a good chess fighter as u will never tell a lie!! hats off !!!

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1130

    79Abraxas79

    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.  

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1131

    Rafchess

    Cool Best moves is key to win.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1132

    Ziggyblitz

    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.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1133

    Rafchess

    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.


     Innocent variables may be sort of recipe but devotion and correct move remains there as pivotal!!

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1134

    Rafchess

    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.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1135

    Ziggyblitz

    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.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1136

    Violets_are_blue

    My humble goal within 3 years is to reach 1500 Elo. I don't think I will beat many players. Is it still possible to get a reasonably accurate rating?

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1137

    Ziggyblitz

    Violets_are_blue wrote:

    My humble goal within 3 years is to reach 1500 Elo. I don't think I will beat many players. Is it still possible to get a reasonably accurate rating?


    I assume you mean over the board chess.  You'd need to play a large number of games (maybe 50) against a variety of opponents to achieve a reasonably accurate rating, IMHO.  According to my turn-based Glicko RD = 61, meaning there is a good degree of confidence that my playing strength is + or - 122 points, (between 1892 and 2136) and I've played about 300 games.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1138

    Violets_are_blue

    irrawang wrote:
    Violets_are_blue wrote:

    My humble goal within 3 years is to reach 1500 Elo. I don't think I will beat many players. Is it still possible to get a reasonably accurate rating?


    I assume you mean over the board chess.  You'd need to play a large number of games (maybe 50) against a variety of opponents to achieve a reasonably accurate rating, IMHO.  According to my turn-based Glicko RD = 61, meaning there is a good degree of confidence that my playing strength is + or - 122 points, (between 1892 and 2136) and I've played about 300 games.


    I will be prepared to play dozens and dozens of games. ;) Thanks.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1139

    Rafchess

    Violets_are_blue wrote:
    irrawang wrote:
    Violets_are_blue wrote:

    My humble goal within 3 years is to reach 1500 Elo. I don't think I will beat many players. Is it still possible to get a reasonably accurate rating?


    I assume you mean over the board chess.  You'd need to play a large number of games (maybe 50) against a variety of opponents to achieve a reasonably accurate rating, IMHO.  According to my turn-based Glicko RD = 61, meaning there is a good degree of confidence that my playing strength is + or - 122 points, (between 1892 and 2136) and I've played about 300 games.


    I will be prepared to play dozens and dozens of games. ;) Thanks.


     Smilefor that we wish u get thru success!!

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1140

    tommcgrath

    2 get ur ratin up highr wud it b wisr 2 ply higr rated plyrs r lowr rated plyers


Back to Top

Post your reply: