13410 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!
There are not a lot of strong players who play live standard longer time controls. There are plenty in the 1000-1400 range but very few above 1600 and almost none above 2000. I think this prevents live standard ratings from getting too high. I have never played OTB tournament so I do not have a rating other than here. My live standard fluctuates between 1325-1400 based on over 300 games. I have played only a dozen or so blitz games so I don't really count that as accurate. I consistently beat 1400 players and also consistently lose to 1300 players and most times I lose it is from a blown endgame or hanging a piece. I would hope these blunders would be fixed by longer time controls but I am not sure. DrCheck I think you make some good points and I like that you provide stats to back up your claims. The only problem I have is that many of the sample sizes provided are extremely small (both number of case studies and games played by some of them) There are obviously plenty of players who have higher "official" ratings than their chess.com ratings and plenty of players who have lower "official" ratings and most peoples opinions on the subject are based on anecdotal evidence and cannot be changed.
I agree -- to further prove my point I would need a larger data sample. But I was just showing a small random sample to demonstrate my point. While it may not be completely scientific, I have personally observed a large sample -- and the majority of people who have both live standard ratings and official uscf/fide ratings -- their live standard ratings are lower.
Rensch's live ratings may be low due to playing simuls and stuff.
yes, his rating is low due to playing simuls.
still, a live standard rating of 2000 is quite an achievement here on chess. com
But the reason that this is the case is also that not too many players are playing long rated games on the internet. Usually the play blitz.
And statistically the range of ratings is lower if there are less players and less games played.
The argument that if people used engines then we would see astronomically high ratings doesn't hold if they're all in the same rating pool and taking turns beating each other's brains out with the engines. Also, they may not use the engine all the time.
not using the engine all the time is the ONLY way an engine user will not get a high rating. cheater vs cheater doesn't happen anywhere nearly that often in my not-so-humble opinion.
If I see really weird play by an opponent I add them to the no-play list.
Didn't know there was such a thing. Is that just for "online" chess?
I generally play LiveChess only, so I don't know about OnLine, but I suspect that you would have similare ability to "no-play" someone. You go to Home ---> Account ---> Privacy ---> scroll down to "Block User"
Yeah. So if USCF 1600 through 2600 are squished between the standard live ratings of 1500-1900 I don't think I'll be able to consistently find a good opponent.
And I see stuff like the IM you listed who's scoring slightly over 50% against average opponent of 1381... yeah... right. So I'm also worried about facing humans.
i just tried to look a little more into this, and it actually seems true. like, in lack of a better expression to express my feelings, WTF?it just seems really weird to me that the standard pool is THAT narrow, but yeah, from my own (very limited) experience too there seems to be a pretty huge skill gap between 1700-1700 (no typo).
so... how high you get depends on how well you pick your 1700 opponents. :P
lol, nice observation.
chess.com should reevaluate these live standard ratings. As a player, it's hard to know if your progressing in skill with the the high density of player strength between 1700-1900.
How to Become IM? (seeking IM pfren) (Catalan refuted)
by GeorgeBlackChess123 a few minutes ago
Is there a young chess player who can equel Magnus?
by CP6033 a few minutes ago
Improvements sought for Sicillian Dragon game
by davebrah a few minutes ago
by EagleOnHigh 6 minutes ago
London Chess Classics Caruana takes lead
by CP6033 6 minutes ago
Sexism in Chess ...
by Fixing_A_Hole 6 minutes ago
12/12/2013 - Polugaevsky - Szilayi, Moscow 1960
by byronwu 7 minutes ago
by Glorfindel_1 7 minutes ago
Could chess.com improve computer anylizing?
by CP6033 9 minutes ago
English Opening - harryz Attack
by dattyw 10 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!