# Chess Ratings - How They Work

Aug 23, 2007, 12:00 AM |
531 | Chess.com Help

Like it or not, we ALL have a chess rating. You may not care at all about your rating, or you may be whining every time it goes down in the slightest. You might be someone who plays a game a year, or someone who plays 1,000 a day. Still, there is a number out there that represents how well you play chess. Well, that's the theory, anyway.

To understand chess ratings you have to understand two things: #1 - that you have a TRUE rating that perfectly represents your strength of play, and #2 - that that TRUE rating will never be known and so we have to use statistics to get as close as possible to the truth. I'm writing this article in response to many people who ask about ratings and need a simple explanation of how they work. (I only know about all this because of a recent super-in-depth statistics course I took and my research in building Chess.com!)

There are two main rating systems, and each one has its merits.

The Elo System (used by the United States Chess Federation, FIDE, and many other online chess sites) is popular for two reason - it has been around for a long time, and it is simple. The idea is this: given two chess players of different strengths, we should be able to calculate the % chance that the better player will win the game. For example, Garry Kasparov has ~100% chance of beating my 4-year-old daughter. But he may only have a ~60% chance of beating another Grandmaster. So when playing that other Grandmaster, if he wins 6 games out of 10, his rating would stay the same. If he won 7 or more, it would go up, and 5 of less, his rating would go down. Basically, the wider the spread of the ratings, the higher percentage of games the higher rated player is expected to win. So to calculate a person's rating after playing a few games you calculate the average ratings of his opponents, and then how many games he was expected to win, and then plug it into a formula that spits out the new rating. Simple enough. Well, it turns out, that is maybe TOO simple.