Chess rating on chess.com compared to "real" rating
Sort:
It's hard to play opponents with ratings higher than yours on a consistent basis... the average chess.com player is 1500ish and therefore it's likely that your average will be around there... I'm personallly 1955 and my average opponent is in the 1700's.
sjmc wrote:
Your rating here does depend a lot on how much time and effort you put into your games. Clearly if you are studying every move in depth, checking openings databases, using the analysis board etc, and your opponent is nonchalantly glancing quickly at the board and firing back the first move he/she thinks of, then you will quickly gain a higher rating relative to "true" ability.
Its not really possible to discover how much effort the average player here puts into their games, but it is probably true that if you are concerned about your rating then you will be making more efforts in games to try and improve it - and it will become inflated as a result.
The only way to find out is to get playing over-the-board and see how you get on.
I think this is a good way of looking at it. And overall I think it's a bit inflated
There is no reason why these numbers, chess.com and FIDE, should be similar because different pools of players. My guess would be lower ratings would be similar, because 0 is 0 no matter how you scale it. From about chess.com 1600 or so I think the chess.com ratings are inflated by about 300 compared to FIDE rating. An explanation could be that there are a lot of casual players on chess.com, whilst it takes a certain amount of effort to play other the board, which FIDE ratings come from.
I'm unrated though suspect my rating here is less compelling than my OTB or win driven play is.
My practice and study rating range here is very much within the fluctuating range of new and casual players. I figure, until my Chess.com rating is 1500 or more, I'll continue to play against individuals who are deceptively competitive, too casual, or working with a horridly off projection (as a new player). I've quoted 1500 because I always target and accept matches against individuals with a higher rating than I have. After 100 games, if someone still has a higher rating than 1500, I do figure that person will present enough of a challenge for me to continue growing.
I intend to make it into a range of players who take care, exercise due diligence, and find their weaknesses by playing each game as best they can. For any individual who came to Chess.com fully prepared to play every game at their maximum capacity, I doubt the pool of players we have would matter. Once you get to a certain point, I figure a very realistic representation of your rating and competitive opposition will appear.
I was a decent student in school, got mostly "A"s. Coming new to Chess.com and being given a provisional 1200 I considered it like having a "C" that I had to prove myself to rise above. Trouble was I did not have a clue what my strength compared to others actually was. I had played lots of games but have no formal training. Never joined a club, never played in a tournament, and never was rated. I put in my 5 minute Preset seek here and played anyone who cared to. I got beat, beat beat, and dropped to 1000, 900, 800, 700, and felt demoralized like slipping to a "D" on my way to an "F". Adjusted by creating a seek of my present rating--better got some wins. And increased time to 10 minutes--better,no longer loosing just by running out of time. And started to win and slowly increased the rating of the player I was willing to play. I mostly play 10 minute blitz I am back to low 1200 and realize I was not as good as I hoped I would be.The average player here is above 1300. I have more experience (almost 1000 games) now but I am in a rut, not improving, and must learn how to study my games to find my mistakes and weaknesses and learn how to counter. I enjoyed playing a natural/intuitive style and suspect that my real rating is below 1200 as I have played on an average players rated below me. I realize now, I am still just an uneducated noob chess wannabe that will have to actually work to improve.
ih8sens wrote:
Although there is no mathematical way to test this, it has been my experience that your Chess.com rating and your 'real' rating are often very similar, with your Chess.com rating occasionally being inflated slightly. Of course for your first few games (20, using other rating systems) your rating will be terribly innacurate anyways so don't worry about it.
-matt
Well, it depends on how you play cc. If you play it like OTB your rating probably won't be inflated by anymore than 200 points and quite possibly alot less. But if you're like me and take advantage of cc's resources and extra time then the rating can easily become super inflated. I don't claim my 2240 rating means I'm anywhere near that good, it just shows given time I can find the right ideas and tactics. I just play it for a relaxing game where I can calculate things out and plan a lot better, it seems to help me for analyzing in real games, even if I don't get an analysis board, because I think it's about my exposure to a lot of lines I wouldn't be able to see otherwise. Some people are better at using that extra time than others.
I play 3 0 games only. The reason being is that it's difficult for players to cheat with faster games. It also makes me concentrate on the entire board, not just an offensive or defensive strategy. I think this reflects a more true rating as moves become reactive and proactive in a second nature, but nothing wrong with the slow games.
menofsticks wrote:
The chess.com ratings use the Glicko system, which is intended as an "improved" version of the Elo rating system. In both systems, as I understand it, a rating of 1200 is considered the average rating. Note that this means that a player that rates 1200 is an average player for that specific population of chess players.
Arpad Elo designed his formula to treat 1500 as the average rating. AFAIK, Mark Glickman has not altered this part of the formula.
I just played a game with an opponent rated 1582. I must say it was not easy too beat him. I was a pawn down and a little spacial advantage. I made use of that advantage and slightly increased it, in the end I won by choking him. He did not blunder and played tactically sound. I can't believe these ratings are inflated with more than 50-80 points. Players around 1400 make sometimes blunders, but he didn't. And he could have, several times, actually I hoped he would fall for one, but he didn't:)
All I hear is how Chess.com ratings are clearly inflated and that in any real FIDE sponsored tournament one's rating would be much lower, but if that is true, then why are there IM's and NM's rated only 1800?
carlrobjr wrote:
All I hear is how Chess.com ratings are clearly inflated and that in any real FIDE sponsored tournament one's rating would be much lower, but if that is true, then why are there IM's and NM's rated only 1800?
They probably do not devote a lot of time to their Chess.com games. For instance, my record against one IM is 1 win, 2 losses, and 1 draw. At the time, he was playing in the neighborhood of 700 simultaneous games. I doubt that he spent more than a few seconds on his moves (he made some blunders that I'm sure he would not have made if he would have spent a few minutes thinking about the moves).
FHansen wrote:
I am pretty new to chess and I do not have a "real" rating, only the one given to me at chess.com (around 1650). Is this rating somewhat real or is it much too high? I really hope that it is not too wrong, and believe so as I have problem finding good opponents which might be explained through that there are not that many chess players in Sweden.
I would be very grateful if someone with a real rating could compare it with his or hers chess.com rating.
mvh Fredrik
There has got to be 500 threads about this...
Chessislife2013 wrote:
There has got to be 500 threads avh Fredrik bout this...
Probably, except this one was likely one of the first. Look at the date :P
this is just for fun, so your rating is inflated. you will have to ply fide people to see about increasing your rating to 2000. if you lose i dont think you lose pts in a chess groupie. beating someone higher may lift u a few here and there . you just have to have the bawls to join if i can say tht. ty
"From about chess.com 1600 or so I think the chess.com ratings are inflated by about 300 compared to FIDE rating"
I don't get it. On chess.com my rating is 300 _lower_ than my offline rating.
This topic is from 2008, holy.
nTzT wrote:
This topic is from 2008, holy.
That may be... but the difference in ratings is there, and not clarified for me... 
I've read it, but still don't know why my chess.com is 300 points lower than my clubrating.
I'm a gamer i played a lot of rank games in moba, battle royal, mmo, shooting games, i'm new to this chess.com but i love it. i dont care about rating in real life chess. what i want is to get a high rating this chess online. my experience in video games if you play more and master it you will get a high rating.