Chess rating system

Here is an endgame example : «The Queen against both Rooks» :

DIAG 1: White to play

Judgment: In the present position it is practically obvious that the endgame is a draw:
i) None of both pawn is able to reach the promotion.
ii) The White King will be unable to escape checks from the Black Queen.
iii) White Rooks are coordinated, preventing the White Queen from capturing one of them.

The game may continue as follows:

1.Re7+ Kh6 2.Rfe3 Qc2+ 3.Kf3 Qf5+ 4.Kg2 Qd5+ 5.Kf2 Qd2+ 6.Kf3 a4 7.R7e6+ ½-½

2^o) The Queen against three minor pieces

The combat between a Queen and three minor pieces is particularly captivating and uncertain. At this subject, Tarrasch (p.303 in the same ouvrage) expresses himself like this: «...It is the same with regard to minor pieces. Those must always be well defended by pawns. If they are not, their loss is about always certain in the combat against the Queen.»

One can easily moderate or in any case supplement the opinion expressed by Tarrasch. Thus, for example, two Knights protecting one another constitute, for the Queen, an indestructible block (if a Queen makes face with three minor pieces she cannot all the same, except in very exceptional situations - like an immediate promotion -, sacrifice herself against one of them!). We make here similar remarks that those done, in the preceding paragraph, about confrontation between a Queen and two Rooks: the relative value of Queen and minor pices depends from many factors, among which:

Ops, forgot to cite the font:

http://www.chess-theory.com/enthcct04_value_pieces_chess_learn_free_lesson.php

Thanks for the good information!!!

The only problem I have with the current rating system for online (Or "correspondance") play is that the Glicko seems to stay permenantly high. I usually finish one or two game per day, and yet my glicko rating is still 77. Shouldn't it be going down as I play more and more games?

That's your rating deviation, not your rating. Your rating is 1934. 77 is a measure of how accurate that rating is.

This may be related to rating, or it may be covered somewhere else, but what are the diamonds and crowns symbols of?  Some level of accomplishment I would think, but what?

Members who have payed this site so as to support it and have extra features not offered to the ones who dont pay.

One bizarre qwirk of this system is that when it tells the rating og the players you beat it gives their rating AFTER they lose their points: it was higher when I was playing them.  That's the rating I beat.  Not too important but it really bugs me.

The rating system used here is NOT the elo system. You can go to the FAQs to learn more. I don't think 1200 is exactly the "Average" in the elo system.

i am interested to see where my rating here setlles down. I hadnt played chess for 27  years till last week .

My rating was bcf162 when i "retired",should it have gone down a lot from not playing? i certainly cant remember any opening theory anymore! According to my dodgy maths bcf162 would tally with a rating here of circa 1900 so have a long way to go yet.

Just play chess  and  have fun with it  , rating is not important at all  at this point .

Here I thought the initial 1200pts was a welcoming gift, like a signing bonus, when you join.  This makes me feel less loved!

ratings are just a measure of your progress, or lack of it

True, barnbybob, true.

OG

This system stinks!!  My friend just joined but he hasnt played chess in years. The first timme he lost he lost like 400 points ! When he improved, his rating wound go up by 10  or 15 because he played a lot of games!!!

i really don't like it

 You must give reasons for these kind of things, especially if you make a strong statement.  Why don't you like it?

OG

Is FIDE hinting on upgrading to a global live rating system, perhaps by the next decade?

http://bit.ly/bp6J

Ratings are only important if you are a pro and play for money.  Other than that I keep up with mine because it is in front of me every game like it or not. Just play chess and have fun and the rating will take care of itself.

Wouldn't it be better if the average rating was 0, then we could have a ton of negative players and positive players?