Characterizing Rating Levels

i like ur thinking :)

For a program called Chess Analysis Pro 7, its surprising to find its simply an excel table with instructions.

Version 6 used a pencil and squared paper. I must be more careful about what I 'endorse'.

 Spot on!

That reminds me of this zen quote:

“Before enlightenment; chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment; chop wood, carry water.”

1703 ^_^

Hi everyone,

First time poster.  I'm USCF 1500 and only play in 1 tournament per year.

My livechess rating hovers at around 1600 for blitz chess.  I don't know what my online chess rating is yet (have only played 1 game).  But I suspect it will be in the 1700 range. I was even told by the welcome mod here that I'm playing him at over 2000 strength (which I highly doubt).

And Chess Mentor?  I believe it's wildly inaccurate with regards to chess playing strength (I am consistently above 2100 here). 

Interestingly enough, I've seen a lot of 1800 blitz players here who are 2200+ players over the board. 

Bottom line: the chess ratings seem a bit "off" here, or inconsistent.  How can several 2200 OTB rated players play such a weaker game of blitz? 

I'm just as confused as everyone else now.  LOL.

Blitz is almost always going to be the worst chess you will play. A 2200 OTB player could very easily be a 1800 blitz player, given the difference in time they have to think.

I saw recently how Canadian champion lost to GM in 3 minute blitz game by missing a simple mate threat. I saw same champion a year before perfectly winning an endgame where I couldn't predict any of his moves. Blitz is blitz.

Hi careyfan,

Ratings from one pool of players don't translate to another.  It doesn't make sense to say chess.com ratings are "off" relative to USCF ratings.  Not only is it a different pool of players, it isn't even the same rating system (chess.com uses Glecko here, not ELO).

Also muddying the waters is different people play CC chess with different styles.  Some folks play casually; some folks play each game as if it were life and death; some folks play many games and only spend a little time on each move, etc.  So someone's CC rating here on chess.com may not translate well to their OTB tournament rating (where everyone is there to play chess against exactly one opponent under very similar conditions and paid a lot more money than a basic chess.com membership for the privilege).

All ratings need to be taken with a grain of salt.  My USCF is 1702 but I've been as high as 2169 here -- back in my play every game as if it were life and death phase...    I got burned out by playing too many games (36 at the peak) at that intensity level and have been putting less and less time in per move and now I'm down to 1987.    Now I'm taking a chess break (no chess.com games going right now), after which we'll see which YeOldeWildman rises from the ashes... 

Oops...  My mistake.  It's spelled "Glicko" not "Glecko"...    Here's a link:

http://www.chess.com/article/view/chess-ratings---how-they-work

Fair enough.  It's just that I saw people saying that chess.com rating=USCF-300. Perhaps they meant online rating.

Blitz is blitz...and of course, blunders will be made.  But over the long haul, blitz rating should be pretty close to actual rating.  If there are masters here with 1800 chess rating, does that mean I'm playing strong blitz with a lousy 1630 rating?  LOL.

If what they say is about right, I guess I should top off at around 1800 for online chess.  Who knows?

One of the problems this 'project' faces is that, not only do players have several ratings, those ratings are changing, gecko-like, all the time. During any proposed period of investigation into what a 1400-rated player knows, that player will have become a 1500-rated player (or a 1300 one!).

Peter Paul posted this in 1993 on rec.games.chess:

USCF
500      Knows how the pieces move, doesn't have a firm grasp of
         the rules of castling (especially q-side) and doesn't
         know about en passant. Will leave any piece en prise
         including the king. Often games result in illegal
         positions. Endgame is seldom reached.
800      Average "layperson" chess player i.e. never heard of USCF
         (or CCA or FIDE or whatever),
         chess notations, chess books. Knows castling, but
         may not know of en passant. Doesn't leave king en prise,
         but will leave any other piece en prise. Loves the queens.
         Games are often decided by which player hangs queen first.
         Difficulty in figuring how to
         mate with K+Q+R vs. k. Difficulty in avoiding
         stalemate in K+Q vs. k.
1000     Starting to realize that there is a body of chess "theory"
         including tactics and strategy, opening, middle and
         endgames. Loves forks. Generally does not leave pieces
         en prise. Easily figures out how to mate with K+Q vs. k.
1200     Knows an opening for white, usually the Italian or the
         Four Knights. Strives for development in opening, but
         doesn't know what to do with it afterwards. Can see 1 ply
         ahead regularly, 2 if trying hard. Can see a mate in 1.
         Knows forks, pins, skewers. Stalemates often in won
         K+P vs. k endgames (oposition). Easily figures out how to
         mate with K+R vs. k.
         Difficulty in figuring out how to mate with K+B+B vs. k.
1500     Average rating for USCF members (or there abouts).
         Has an opening for W and B vs. KP and QP.
         If KP player then knows the fried liver attack cold. If QP
         player then knows the Cambridge Springs cold.
         Usually takes a
         2 or more move combination to hang a piece. Can solve
         many mate-in-n problems if given enough time. "Visualizes"
         the chess board. Almost always defeats those rated below 1000.
         Attempts to play some lay people blind folded, but
         finds it more difficult than it looks. Easily figures
         out how to mate
         with K+B+B vs. K. Knows how to mate with K+B+N vs. k.
         Although very conversant in tactics, strategy seems a
         bit of a mystery.
1700     About the average rating of tournament players.
         Has a definite feel for which positions are
         comfortable and which are potentially dangerous.
         Easily crushes laypeople when giving multiboard
         simuls.
         Rarely hangs pieces, but for multimove combinations.
         Understands methods of attacking the castled king position.
         Has trouble sacrificing material for positional
         compensation. Believes that to get better, they must
         study the endgame.
1900     Has reached the top %15 or so of all rated players. Can
         actually understands some of the GM games published,
         espcially in openings that s/he plays. Understands
         many positional weaknesses and how to exploit them,
         i.e. minority attack, backward pawn, isolated pawn,
         bad bishop. Looks for good squares for knights. Can
         sacrifice the exchange with success. Easily
         gets positional advantages against computers, though
         doesn't always win. Knows some basic K+R+P vs. k+r
         endgames. Believes that s/he could easily become
         a master, but for the time needed.
2000     (I'm only mid 1900's so how woiuld I know :-) )
2200     ??
2400     ??

-Peter

I am embarassed that I do not know how to mate with K+N+B v K.

That being said, I have never lost rating points because of this.

I cannot sacrifice the exchange with success, I don't like sacrificing any material at all in fact.

Ozzie, if you were ever faced with a K+N+B v K situation you would checkmate your opponent with ease. I don't think it is something you need to confess!

I also just can't get past the whole material thing. No matter how many books I read I struggle to understand how a positional nicety can possibly equal a whole bishop or two pawns or whatever. Maybe that's why my rating has just sunk by 150 points....

Help me Mr. Silman. I know I can be better.

likesforests' contribution from Peter, Paul & Mary takes us full circle.

1200     Knows an opening for white, usually the Italian or the  Four Knights. Strives for development in opening, but doesn't know what to do with it afterwards. Can see 1 ply ahead regularly, 2 if trying hard. Can see a mate in 1. 
 Knows forks, pins, skewers. Stalemates often in won  K+P vs. k endgames (oposition). Easily figures out how to  mate with K+R vs. k. 

Clearly, the 1200 referred to here is not a chess.com 1200. More like a chess.com 1400-1500.

If we examined one hundred chess.com 1400-1500's, would we find - despite great individual variation in skills & knowledge, that a large percentage of the group matched this profile to a large degree?

Chess on chess.com is extremely unregulated. Consider the music grade exams (about which I know next to nothing). The test for each grade contains elements of Theory, Aural and Practical Muscianship. http://www.abrsm.org/?page=exams/gradedMusicExams/latestSyllabuses.html 

On chess.com, by contrast, you can attain a 1400 grade without knowing any chess theory, never having opened a chess book and without having looked at any Master games. This reinforces the view that there is probably not sufficient uniformity within the chess.com community to find a correlation between rating bands and skill/knowledge levels.

Excellent post, likesforests. I reckon it's fairly spot-on.

Im still waiting to get back to 1600+ 6 months so far

The explanations of the rating are rite on johnny! Great food for thought!

Graded music exams don't do justice to improvisation, but good chess does. It's like comparing popular culture to high art - they deal in different currencies.