Chess rating system

ok ( this is for people who have played in tourney or who know people who have played in tourneys or have readed it) do we start in fide chess at the rating 1200 or 1000 or ( if ther another rating ).

ok ( this is for people who have played in tourney or who know people who have played in tourneys or have readed it) do we start in fide chess at the rating 1200 or 1000 or ( if ther another rating ).

so the bishop is either a little higher or equal interresting

For FIDE chess rating you have to play official games, when I'm correct at least 9, against rated opponents. With some formulas they can calculate your rating. This can be an 1100 rating but also an 2100. This depends on your score and the ratings of your opponents.

It's certainly possible when you consider that he plays all of his games at 14 day move intervals so that he can postpone his losses and draws as long as possible.  Last I checked he had a couple of lost games that were approaching their first birthday....

 As an assembly-line worker with a 5th grade education, I will try to put rating into layman's terms for everyone!

The population of all players looks like a big hill.  Let's say that we're looking at the side of the hill, and on the right side, where the hill becomes flat again, there are the very best players.  Since there are not so many players that are really, really good, there are only a few there, and so the hill is not very high.

The same thing happens over on the left side of the hill.  There are just a few players over there, and they are the players that are not very good.  Once again, the hill is not very high there.

In the middle of the hill, there are a lot of players.  These are the players who are kinda average - they win just about as many games as they lose.  Since there are a lot of players here, the hill is very high.

They drop you onto the top of the hill, and you can move either towards one side, or towards the other side.  All that matters is how many games you win or lose, although there is a bit of a catch...

Whenever you play someone else on the hill, most of the time one of you will win, and the other will lose (although sometimes it's a draw).  Either way, you will either move towards the right side or the left side.  The amount that you move is based on how many games you've played in total, and how recently it's been since you finished a game.  This is called your ratings deviation (RD).  If your ratings deviation is a big number, that means you move a lot.  If it's small, you don't move very much at all.

This is further modified by your opponent's rating.  If you win against someone who is very good, you should move up more than if they are not-so-good.

I hope this helps people to understand rating a little better.  As for my 5th grade education, I guess I should clarify that I didn't exactly stop after 5th grade...

 That's just the strongest player within our population.  The rating here isn't the same as the rating there because that's a different population of players.

If someone wins all the time, their rating goes up, but eventually they run out of opponents who can push it higher (they reach the end of the hill).  In order to hit 3000, we'd need more players, and especially more players at the very highest levels, and the leader would have to beat them all.

I wouldn't say that such a thing is impossible, as there have been tournaments where the leader of the tournament performed at a "3000+ strength" on that particular day (both Fischer and Kasparov had "burst" ratings over 3000; if anyone else comes to mind, please let me know), but in order to maintain that rating, you would have to have an unbeaten record.  Based on the number of draws and losses, even among the very best players, it's very hard to push yourself past the end of the curve and stay up there for an extended period of time.  This is not to say that someone could come along in the near future and be so good as to be unbeatable.  There are records being broken in sports all the time.

Chess engines are very good at evaluating position and material.  Most of the time they are very close (within .001 of the real value).  Even if two different engines are not in complete agreement, the theory behind the values matches the relative values that are usually given for the position in books (i.e., +1.00 means white is up a pawn).

Keep in mind that your rating and the rating of a game's position have nothing to do with each other.  For example, your Elo would not be affected by the fact that you were down a rook when you managed to pull a win out of your butt. 

 Doesn't matter.  You guys started the game with the same pieces.  He doesn't get a bonus because he's ranked higher - he still has to beat you.

Your rating isn't really exact either.  Because of the way probability works, your actual rating is somewhere within a cloud of numbers, where the range is your ratings deviation (RD).  There's no way to tell what someone's exact rating is - it would require an infinite number of games.

Since you will play a game tomorrow... and that game will be either won or lost... unless you can tell the future... there really is no way to know.  He plays against you, thinking you are 1200?  When you really are 900?  It's a moot point.  And if you beat him 6 months from now, are you still 900?  It's only a guess, not a guarantee.

Everyone starts with a standered rating which is 1200. As you win more games, you improve and so does your rating. If you ever lose a game, your rating may fall a bit. 

"The process of rating players can be compared to the measurement of the position of a cork bobbing up and down on the surface of agitated water with a yard stick tied to a rope and which is swaying in the wind."

                               Arpad Elo, Chess Life, 1962

Have  Great Day—Sali

http://www.chess.com/photos/view_album/SALICRUP/chess-pics

I'm new to the site I dont like quick timed games I like to play at aslow thinking pace Why must I learn to play so fast. They set me up on an on line game where you have three days to move always waiting for opponent to move I prefer 30 min or longer games  suggestions  please

Welcome, Harry.

I'm a little confused because you indicate that you don't like fast games but then you say you don't like the three days per move.  If you want, you can set up a live game and select the amount of minutes you want for the game.  Then, the person who agrees to play you will be agreeing to that time.  I hope this helps.

The ting's to have fun,not worry about your rating.

Very true, wuwuwuwuwu.  I wish I could do so!

OG

thats me lol

thx to staff and help that we dont start at 500

A little correction Queen = 9 pts:

Standard valuations

The following is the most common assignment of point values (Capablanca & de Firmian 2006:24-25) (Soltis 2004:6) (Silman 1998:340).

Pieces	Symbol	Value
pawn		1
knight		3
bishop		3
rook		5
queen		9

Alternate valuations

Although the 1/3/3/5/9 system of point totals is generally accepted, many other systems of valuing pieces have been presented. They have mostly been received poorly, although the point system itself falls under similar criticism, as all systems are very rigid and generally fail to take positional factors into account.

Several systems give the bishop slightly more value than the knight. A bishop is usually slightly more powerful than a knight, but not always – it depends on the position (Evans 1967:73, 76), (Mayer 1997:7). A chess-playing program was given the value of 3 for the knight and 3.4 for the bishop, but that difference was acknowledged to not be real (Mayer 1997:5).

[edit] Historical valuations

An 1813 book (source unknown, perhaps by Jacob Sarratt) gives these valuations of the pieces:

• pawn 2 at the start, 3¾ in the endgame
• knight 9¼
• bishop 9¾
• rook 15
• queen 23¾
• king as attack piece (in the endgame) 6½

If these values are divided by three and rounded, they are more in line with the valuations used now:

• pawn 0.7 in the beginning, 1.3 in the endgame
• knight 3.1
• bishop 3.3
• rook 5
• queen 7.9
• king as attacking piece in the endgame 2.2

Howard Staunton in The Chess-Player's Handbook notes that piece values are dependent on the position and the phase of the game (the queen typically less valuable toward the endgame), but gives these values, without explaining how they were obtained (Staunton 1870, 30–31):

• pawn 1.00
• knight 3.05
• bishop 3.50
• rook 5.48
• queen 9.94

In the 1817 edition of Philidor's Studies of Chess, the editor (Peter Pratt) gave the same values.

The 1843 German book Handbuch des Schachspiels by Paul Rudolf von Bilguer gave

• pawn 1.5
• knight 5.3
• bishop 5.3
• rook 8.6
• queen 15.5

When normalizing so that a pawn equals one:

• pawn 1
• knight 3.5
• bishop 3.5
• rook 5.7
• queen 10.3

Yevgeny Gik gave these figures based only on average mobility:

• pawn 1
• knight 2.4
• bishop 4
• rook 6.4
• queen 10.4
• king 3 (as an attacking and defensive piece)

but Andrew Soltis points out problems with that chart and other mathematical methods of evaluation (Soltis 2004:10-12).

Emanuel Lasker gave these approximate values: (Lasker 1934:73)

• Knight = 3 pawns (3 points)
• Bishop = knight (3 points)
• Rook = knight plus 2 pawns (5 points)
• queen = 2 rooks = 3 knights (10 or 9 points)
• king = knight + pawn (4 points)

[edit] More recent evaluations

World Champion Emanuel Lasker (Lasker 1947:107) gave the following values (here scaled and rounded so pawn = 1 point):

• pawn = 1 (on average)
• knight = 3½
• bishop = 3½ (on average)
• rook = 5 (on average)
• queen = 8½.

However Lasker adjusts some of these depending on the starting positions, with pawns nearer the centre, and bishops/rooks on the kingside, being worth more:

• centre (d/e-file) pawn = 1½ points, a/h-file pawn = ½ point
• c-file bishop = 3½ points, f-file bishop = 3¾ points
• a-file rook = 4½ points, h-file rook = 5¼ points.

According to Burgess, Lasker (in his book Lasker's Chess Manual) gave these relative values for the early part of the game (Burgess 2000:491):

• rook pawn: ½
• knight pawn: 1¼
• bishop pawn: 1½
• central pawn: 2
• knight: 4½
• queen bishop: 4½
• king bishop: 5
• queen rook: 6
• king rook: 7
• queen: 11

Grandmaster Larry Evans gives the values:

• pawn = 1
• knight = 3½
• bishop = 3¾ ^[1]
• rook = 5
• queen = 10 (Evans 1967:73, 76).

Another system is used by Max Euwe and Hans Kramer in Volume 1 of their The Middlegame, with values

• pawn = 1
• knight = 3½
• bishop = 3½
• rook = 5½
• queen = 10.

Bobby Fischer gave the values:

• pawn = 1
• knight = 3
• bishop = 3¼
• rook = 5
• queen = 9 (Fischer, Mosenfelder & Margulies 1972:14).

I. A. Horowitz also gave the bishop slightly more value than the knight, three plus "a small fraction" (Horowitz 1951:11).

An early Soviet chess program used

• pawn = 1
• knight = 3½
• bishop = 3½
• rook = 5
• queen = 9½ (Soltis 2004:6).

Another popular system is

• pawn = 1
• knight = 3
• bishop = 3
• rook = 4½
• queen = 9 (Soltis 2004:6).

[edit] Larry Kaufman's research

Grandmaster Larry Kaufman performed a computer analysis of thousands of games by masters to determine the average relative value of the pieces. He determined (to the nearest ¼ point) the following:

• pawn = 1
• knight = 3¼
• bishop = 3¼
• rook = 5
• queen = 9¾.

Add an additional ½ point for having both bishops. Kaufman elaborates about how the values of knights and rooks change, depending on the number of pawns on the board: "A further refinement would be to raise the knight's value by 1/16 and lower the rook's value by ⅛ for each pawn above five of the side being valued, with the opposite adjustment for each pawn short of five." (Kaufman 1999).

[edit] Hans Berliner's system

World Correspondence Chess Champion Hans Berliner gives the following valuations, based on experience and computer experiments:

• pawn = 1
• knight = 3.2
• bishop = 3.33
• rook = 5.1
• queen = 8.8

There are adjustments for the rank and file of a pawn and adjustments for the pieces depending on how open or closed the position is. Bishops, rooks, and queens gain up to 10 percent more value in open positions and lose up to 20 percent in closed positions. Knights gain up to 50 percent in closed positions and lose up to 30 percent in the corners and edges of the board. The value of a good bishop may be 10 percent or more than that of a bad bishop (Berliner 1999:14-18).

Finally, about thequeen / two rooks, never forget the value is relative at different moments of the game:

Changing valuations in the endgame

The relative value of pieces changes as a game progresses to the endgame. The relative value of pawns and rooks may increase, and the value of bishops may increase also, though usually to a lesser extent. The knight tends to lose some power, and the strength of the queen may be slightly lessened, as well. Some examples follow.

• A queen versus two rooks

• In the middlegame they are equal
• In the endgame, the two rooks are somewhat more powerful. With no other pieces on the board, two rooks are equal to a queen and a pawn