Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Chess rating system


  • 2 years ago · Quote · #1161

    Rafchess

    irrawang wrote:
    shrike1 wrote:

    like to zero?


    Begs the question...Why would you want to?  If you feel you are overrated, your rating will come down soon enough.  Sandbagging is the tried and proven method for lowering your rating.  Although I don't know how low it is possible to go, probably about 500 or so.


     Cool U go thru Erik's formula at the begining!!

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #1162

    marcel_712

    Hello!

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #1163

    Ziggyblitz

    There are only 40 players below 550.  The lowest rated member is above 250.  I'd guess most of these members are inactive.  Even if you could arrange to play these guys and managed to lose every game (they could be quicker on the resign button or just plain time out) you'd still couldn't reach a zero rating.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #1164

    Rafchess

    irrawang wrote:

    There are only 40 players below 550.  The lowest rated member is above 250.  I'd guess most of these members are inactive.  Even if you could arrange to play these guys and managed to lose every game (they could be quicker on the resign button or just plain time out) you'd still couldn't reach a zero rating.


    Laughing  U got an wonderful theme point!!

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #1165

    Ziggyblitz

    what point was that?

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #1166

    snip3z

    :( don't be hatin' on 250 raters!

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #1167

    Rafchess

    irrawang wrote:

    what point was that?


     LaughingIrrawang 's point was in his proposition !!

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #1168

    ChristianSoldier007

    what was elo's first name agian?

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #1169

    ChristianSoldier007

    actually someone did get zero, i don't remember who

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #1170

    vadsamoht

    ChristianSoldier007 wrote:

    what was elo's first name agian?


    Arpad.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #1171

    Rafchess

    ChristianSoldier007 wrote:

    actually someone did get zero, i don't remember who


     Cool try to remember ur unrated opponent u fought and ur unconditional surrender resulting a zero achievement !!

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #1172

    tommcgrath

    What would the difference be between a chess.com rating and a fide rating ???

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #1173

    tommcgrath

    I know its OTb I play in lots of OTB chess tornements but I'm wondering what would a Fide rating be in chess.com.My question being If I had a 2000 chess.com rating what would thatt be in fide what is the point difference,is a fide rating 100 points haead of your chess.com rating or is a 200 behind ect!

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #1174

    AndyClifton

    about 1700

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #1175

    tommcgrath

    so yuor saying a 2000 chess.com rating is equivilant to a 1700 feid rating ?

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #1176

    waffllemaster

    It's more like a 1700 FIDE rating is a 2000 chess.com turn-based rating.

    Live chess is a bit closer I think, but I don't play here much either, and some of the ratings have changed.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #1177

    AndyClifton

    uhohspaghettio wrote:
    oldbones wrote:

    so yuor saying a 2000 chess.com rating is equivilant to a 1700 feid rating ?


    No, he has no idea what he's talking about. He doesn't even play here himself.


    That's funny, I could've swore I did...but then I don't know a lot of Irish spaghetti makers either. Wink

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #1178

    snip3z

    you guys are mad.... FIDE = 90 30 or 120 0 ... chess.com is 1 0 to 15 0. So i suggest some of you guys learn that chess.com rating is horrible in comparison to FIDE or real life ratings....

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #1179

    andreic

    To make it simpler, my idea to compare the players in a RR tournament:

    If the game is a draw :

     the score for player1 is : (material_player1-material_player2)/game_moves.

            the score for player2 is : (material_player2- material_player1)/game_moves.

     

    If one of the players wins:

           the score for the winner is: material_winner/game_moves

           the score for the loser is: -material_winner/game_moves

    Note:

    material_winner, material_player1 and material_player2 are calculated after the last valid move of the game.

    game_moves is the number of moves played ,including the last move of the game.

    If a player goes in a RR  tournament and plays n games his final score would be :

    score1+score2+..score(n). 

    Please provide feedback. I think this is more acurrate that a rating system, although is much simpler.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #1180

    DavidMertz1

    I don't like the idea.  You could win every game in the round robin and end up not winning due to one person having their opponents blunder.

    I'd also hate to have to calculate whether, up a queen, it's better to just take the mate in 2 or to first capture more material and promote every single pawn to a queen and THEN checkmate him.  Or, on the other side, whether it's better to LET your opponent try to take everything you have, or just resign.  Or whether to attempt to absurdly lengthen an obviously drawn opposite colored bishops with 2 pawns vs 1 pawn endgame all the way to the 50 move rule.

    Chess is about the checkmate.  You can't take your material with you.  


Back to Top

Post your reply: