16281 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
"points" is an artificial concept - why not just throw in the towel and
have Houdini assign the ratings or play both sides for that matter?
that could be an wonderful innovation to ur artificial concept!! of points.happy new year beardogjones.
dare 2 challnge me!!!
hi nitish@63! U thrown ur gauntlet to everybody.Its heroic! appriciate!!!!!!
My major issue with online ratings is there is no way to tell if the person who beat you used a chess engine. The minor ones are things like, why should a club player with an official rating from an offical sanctioning body of chess tournaments have to start at 1200 when he is a legit 1750? I am sure the argument will be that if he/she is truly that good, they will get there eventually. True, they will, but why take a student in 9th grade back in 4th? Just because 4th grade in the average grade of school students? That is plain ignorant. These few things really bother me. It makes it truly difficult to assess ones personal development. Chessmaster starts players at 1400. Maybe it is because of these complaints. I say start everyone high. If they aren't legit, they will fall fast.
allgiance to certain desciline is a primary need for every player.So a norm which is equal to both the party seems to be a good practice.
You can't just start people high... if everyone started 500 points higher, then eventually everyone's ratings would end up 500 points higher, because you'd pick up more rating points from the new people whose ratings haven't been lowered enough yet. If you start people out at 1700, then the ratings system will adjust itself until the average new person IS a 1700. And the people who used to be 1700 will now be 2200, etc.
Using official ratings from USCF or other bodies as a starting rating would probably be fine from a ratings standpoint, but how would you prove that you are who you say you are? Premium membership using a credit card with your name on it? Obviously they verify the titled players already, but it seems like it would be a pain for the staff to have to do it for everyone.
And as far as the chess engine goes, if someone's using an engine then they're going to be out of your ratings range pretty fast. Assuming they don't just get caught and tossed from the site.
I agree that discipline is essential. You make a mockery of discipline however, when a very disciplined player, through being disciplined, attains a level of education and play.Then you mock his intellegence and discipline by treating him like less than he is. A good norm for both parties would be to treat them as they are instead of your own biasedly leveled playing field.
I have to admit you make a good point about the ratings starting high. I guess thats my own emotional biases kicking in and over compensating. I agree also that it would be a headache for the staff. They might as well be subsidiaries of the major sanctioning bodies.
However, that line of reasoning doesn't quell my hunger for fairness and justice. If you are sated of your desire for these things simply because, it is said that life isn't always fair, then we might as well through out the rule book altogether. Oh wait a minute, that would include the structure(rules) of the game. Therefore, I am defending the integrity, structure and discipline of the game I love. I am not doing this simply because I am upset that I think I deserve a higher rating and don't want to do twice the work,or oh wait, maybe three times while I add in the loses to cheating.
Believe me discrediting the cheater is only the first step. It doesn't fix the damage done to the 1700-2000 players doing it honestly. You might have overlooked how many of these a predator must first devour, before a legit player with a GM/IM type elo will even gime them a game. Then how many more does it take before they are found to be fraud who won't play a live tournament.
This is why in general I have submitted a few examples of why I think some form of reform would be welcome. I would love it if someone would come up with a better system for online play and ratings in particular. Yeah yeah you don't have to reply. I already know.
I agree 100% !!!
I LIKE PIE!
hi! u didnt tell about chess!! appriciate ur pie favouritism!!!!
I try to stay away from this thread but I can't :) Much earlier in the thread I was involved in a debate about the merits of allowing people to supply their rating from another site or organization as the starting rating (I believe it should be permitteed and encouraged). The main rebuttal to my position was that each rating pool is independent, so why try to inter-relate them ("it doesn't matter"). My reply was that if it doesn't matter, then let me start with a rating I supply. In the comments quoted above, there was a mention of needing to verify the rating that is submitted. I personally don't think that would be necessary and agree that it is impractical. Sure there is a risk that someone would enter a false rating, but I think most people who would take the time to enter a rating would enter a "real" one. This has to be better than arbitrarily assigning people a 1200 rating to start.
You can be good at different types of chess games, and you have different ratings in each chess type. It makes sense that you are better at longer games than shorter games, more than the other way around. You can be good at short games by being a pawn ahead, and then ice the person you're playing. You might play short games only to do that, and have a good rating in that type of chess. In long games though, you can't really ice your opponent too well, therefore you'll lose a lot, and not have a very high rating in that type of game. But, the ratings from each type of chess you play does not combine to just form one rating, they stay in separate in whole different ratings that have nothing in common.
I don't follow the rationale but your point is correct. First, in absolute terms, people will be better when they have more time to think. Second, different people have different relative strength depending on the time control. I've done fairly well here in turn-based chess but I get killed in bullet games (and I'm not much better at blitz). I have theories why this is, but that is off-topic.
By the way, how the subject of the relative value of the pieces ever worked its way into this thread is beyond me. :)
To the first point, that is why even within Chess.com there are several different ratings depending on the type of play (Live, Blitz, Online/turn-based, 960, Tactics Trainer, etc.).
Lack of Respect?
by davebrah a few minutes ago
Julianne vs. Schaumburg (board 6)
by laudic a few minutes ago
Dead Chronos Clock
by whitegs a few minutes ago
Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?
by Khallyx 3 minutes ago
Please recommend me a system
by TeraHammer 4 minutes ago
general chess survey
by seadog181 6 minutes ago
by SilentKnight1 8 minutes ago
The best variation against sicilian game
by ThrillerFan 9 minutes ago
12/12/2013 - Polugaevsky - Szilayi, Moscow 1960
by lytonn 11 minutes ago
Anand vs Carlsen: World Championship match thread
by zapped 12 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!