i know that erik, but what i am saying is that instead of this complicated rating system (seeing that it's accuracy is being questioned) why not just use the ranking system only!!!
Chess rating system
Sort:
inferno, how would you determine everybody's ranking? How do you determine how to change a player's ranking when they win or lose? (don't just say it goes up if you win and down if you lose, the programmers need a precise calculation for it.)
Just because a few people who don't understand the rating system question it's accuracy, we shouldn't scrap a system that is both well founded in math and statistics and tried and true (the glicko rating system is used in other places with much success).
Also, my rating today can be compared to my rating next year. My ranking today might have nothing to do with my ranking a year from now.
well in that case loomis excuse me for asking questions!!! let me just say this, " a person asks a question because he/she does not understand/know about the subject", so go figure!!
So here is a simple question - what is the difference between ranking and rating?
i would say ranking is used to show your position in relation to other players and ratings to calculate your skill level!! hope that answers your question paul. oh and for your information " I AM MERELY ASKING QUESTIONS BECAUSE I WANTED TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THE RATING SYSTEM AND HOW IT WORKS, because i saw the way ratings is caculated and it was confusing yet interesting at the same time!
In that case inferno, excuse me for answering your question!!!
And in all sincerity, the next time you ask a question, end it with a question mark instead of three exclamation points and perhaps people will understand better that you are asking a question and not making a suggestion that borders on a demand.
inferno wrote:
i didn't have time to read the posts but i just wanted to know if it wouldn't be better if we ranked instead of rated. this way you will know that on chess.com you are ranked number 1234 (eg.) and not rated 1187 (eg.). what do you think?
well gentlemen i sincerely apologise if it sounded that way, but I think my first post ended with a question mark!
inferno wrote:
i would say ranking is used to show your position in relation to other players and ratings to calculate your skill level!! hope that answers your question paul. oh and for your information " I AM MERELY ASKING QUESTIONS BECAUSE I WANTED TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THE RATING SYSTEM AND HOW IT WORKS, because i saw the way ratings is caculated and it was confusing yet interesting at the same time!
Inferno - thanks - I have only played 9 games on line so far - and have no ranking - is it safe to assume I will get a ranking after I have played more games?
hi...
i just wanna say hi
Some people say that chess should be played for fun and that ratings should be of no consequence. In any sport or game, like baseball for instance, you can have a friendly game with people around your area or you can play for trophies and the opportunity to play in much higher rated leagues. If you want to make chess a major hobby or even a profession, a rating is very important in chess. If the grandmasters didn't have ratings, we would not know who was the best. It is a matter of preference.
I think ironranger has it right - we all play chess for some very different reasons - I'm very new to the game and I'm intrigued as a learner - the ratings are helpful in finding people who play at a level similar to my own so I don't get blasted away and easily discourgaed - my hope is that in time my abilty will increase and if so I expect so will my ratings - expecting sooner or later to rise or fall to my own level of competence
Rating does nothing of telling how strong you're. People's styles differ from person to person some people are better at one type of game than other types. I believe that everyone can play like a grandmaster and already has done a game that a grandmaster would have done.
Hi all, new here. Just wanted to chime in on this thread, as it has been a topic of discussion on just about every chess site I have played on. Here's my take on the whole thing: Ratings do matter, but not for your ego. They give a general idea of your overall ability, which has value for various reasons. Ratings can be manipulated, there's no question about that (example: only playing people much weaker than yourself to get a falsely high rating), but these poeple will be quickly discovered when they face off against someone who has "earned" their rating. We are all perfectly capable of playing well above or below our rating, so it is only a general guideline. Also, an 1800 rating on one site has nothing to do with where your rating will land on another site. The rating on any individual site is specific and relative only to that pool of players. Therefore, you can't compare any online ratings to official ELO ratings in any meaningful way. Additionally, this is Correspondence Chess, so it really is a different game from OTB Chess, and most peole that play Correspondence Chess know this already. Anyway, there's my 2 cents, and I'm glad to have found this site. It has a nice interface, and a lot of nice features. Best of luck to all.
hello all i agree with some ppl bout rating i think they very important
new question (to anybody listening):
when i accept a challenge from somebody, under "game details" it tells me what the game will be worth to my rating. for example:
win: +156 lose: -83 draw: +17
i assume these numbers are derived from my and my opponents' relative strength, as measured by the score we have at the commencement of the game. my question, then, is this: suppose it takes us seven days to play the game. and suppose further that during those seven days, i complete ten other games that were pending at the commencement of the new game. and suppose even further (this will really be a stretch) that i won all ten of those other games.
so my rating goes up. shouldn't that affect that the win/lose/draw numbers for the game i finish after the other ten?
Yes, and it does. When you complete a game your rating changes based on the current rating of you and your opponent. The "rating change" listed on the details tab should change any time you or your opponent finishes a game that changes your rating.
i like the idea of everyone startin on the same rating, but i dont understand. if u play someone with a lower rating and u lose u lose more points than if u lose against someone with a higher rating. thats good.
Loomis wrote: Yes, and it does. When you complete a game your rating changes based on the current rating of you and your opponent. The "rating change" listed on the details tab should change any time you or your opponent finishes a game that changes your rating.
are you sure about this cause i didnt notice that at all
i didn't have time to read the posts but i just wanted to know if it wouldn't be better if we ranked instead of rated. this way you will know that on chess.com you are ranked number 1234 (eg.) and not rated 1187 (eg.). what do you think?
i think we already have taht too :)