Chess rating system
Sort:
bobby_fr1
Sep 13, 2015
0
#2041
[COMMENT DELETED]
hey peeps watsup
chopra wrote:
I think rating is a very good idea. Ej. when we play domino, each player put one dollar on the table! it is not matter of money but you enjoy more the game when you win and get a few dollars. It's matter of a little more motivation to play.
I agree that that would add a bit of spice to the game of chess as well. While it'd be a rocky start at first, once ratings were genuinely established, I think it'd be fun to allow for wagers on this site. Nothing serious of course. Seems like a PayPal kind of arrangement could be used.
Maybe even an odds format could be employed for stronger players against not strong players such as me. Ultimately everything done with the idea of fun behind it..
I'm new, isn't the most important thing staying away from being mated? And the position of my pieces is always vertical, that is if I'm any good, which remains to be seen! ©¿©,
I'm not certain if this is answered elsewhere and it's out of pure curiosity but, how much does an average player play below his strength in bullet? So for instance say an 1800 rated player with, again say 15|10 time control played a 2000 player with three minutes in a 3 game match. How likely is it, assuming the higher rated one never lost on time, the lower rated one would win the match?
[COMMENT DELETED]
Sep 24, 2015
0
#2047
Lunardose wrote:
I'm not certain if this is answered elsewhere and it's out of pure curiosity but, how much does an average player play below his strength in bullet? So for instance say an 1800 rated player with, again say 15|10 time control played a 2000 player with three minutes in a 3 game match. How likely is it, assuming the higher rated one never lost on time, the lower rated one would win the match?
Bullet is different than blitz in that there are too many non chess factors that decide the game, network speed, mouse, interface used, which broswer being used etc. These are important in blitz, but they are much more important in bullet where a second or two often decide the game.
Does anyone know which the minimum rating to become a GM is?
Sep 28, 2015
0
#2049
Will_Champion wrote:
Does anyone know which the minimum rating to become a GM is?
There is no minimum rating. However, the way most players become GMs is through the norm system. That system has undergone some changes in recent years, but essentially, one needs a +2500 rating and three international events with a "norm" performance exceeding 2600 against other GMs.
The full norm system is explained here:
https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=174&view=article
kkl10 wrote:
Pretty sure IQ has no relevance in one's competence at chess (except at the highest level maybe, but this is speculative).
It's reasonable to assume that if one's ability to learn is not impaired by mental retardation (which would be the only way in which IQ could limit one's ability), then one can easily improve from a theoretical 0 (which is where everyone starts since no one's born knowing chess) up to 1800 and beyond. Children learn faster than older folks, but it's feasible to anyone.
It's something one learns over time. It's a bit of a complex skillset so it mainly depends on the amount of effort you're willing to invest.
Chess isn't intrinsically difficult... Once one has a grip on basic patterns it's simple. Everything else is cumulative. It's just a lot to practice, learn and assimilate.
I think even at higher levels it really depends on your ability to control emotions and your reasoning and ability to calculate moves. Just because you stank in school doesn't mean you cannot be a priodogy in chess! Lots of practice and experience is the key... I have not done that yet...
i read that han solo dies in episode 7 of the new star wars movie
who is chewbacca going to play chess with on the millenium falcon?
the whole star wars plot is here if you don't believe me
http://makingstarwars.net/2015/05/a-compiled-synopsis-of-star-wars-the-force-awakens/
[completely off topic post removed -- MOD]
it is the same thing with the chess rating system
Sep 30, 2015
0
#2053
My view of chess rating systems is that a chess rating is only a past rating of previous chess play but does not or can not measure current chess play or future chess play.
Exactly !
Oct 2, 2015
0
#2055
The past is prologue. Yes, ratings reflect past performance. But past performance is a good way to predict the result of the next game. This is why ratings are so reliable as predictors of future games! If they weren't reliable they wouldn't be used.
Well, the rules of probability aren't quite intuitive, sometimes.
Suppose I've launch a coin many times, and one side is ahead.
What is the probability to get each side at the next launch ?
Exactly 1/2 :-o
I think I can untrack now.
I thought the average ELO was 800. I have lots of work to do!
Oct 4, 2015
0
#2059
I have observed some chess players who obsess about their chess rating so much so that they only want to play others with lower ratings so that they will not lower their chess ratings. To me chess is more than ratings.
Oct 5, 2015
0
#2060
Ongoingprocess, that's called "lemmiwinking". It isn't a very good way to improve ratings. A single loss will wipe out all their work, and they won't improve. To improve, you gotta be challenged.
Personally, I doubt players who prefer to feast on minnows would change their preferences if there were no ratings. They'd still prefer to win hundreds of games in a row rather than face more difficult challenges.
For the rest of us, ratings help us to seek out those who are more likely to challenge us.