I think the site uses USCF rules rather than FIDE rules to determine "insufficient losing chances".
It's a variation on USF rules. There is at least one instance where it doesn't match. It's easier to programmatically determine mate is not forced than it is to determine that a help-mate might exist.
Correct, we based the immaterial draw rule on USCF. However, since we have over 1 million games on our site a day, having a TD on hand to review each draw isn't very feasible. For that reason, the draw rules are a little bit more simple! I hope this makes sense.
Sounds like in this case, using FIDE rules would make more sense. I think it would be easier to program.
Not sure coding to figure out if mate is possible in a multitude of material combinations is easier than a check to see if the side with time has a subset of material.
I just discovered that FIDE treats initial ratings differently than USCF does.
I scored 1.5/2 against an average rating of 1981. According to USCF, that's a performance rating of 2223. According to FIDE, that's performance rating of 2001. I know, it's only two games, but that's quite a difference.
No, that's certainly not correct. You are not expected to score 75% against opponents 20 points lower than yourself (that would be the consequence from these numbers.) Carlsen would have lost his no.1 world ranking spot for not beating Anand like 7-1.
I think there are more plausible explanations. Are you sure that these ratings averaging at 1981 were FIDE? Maybe one or both were USCF, and significantly lower?
My new FIDE account only has two games, and my official performance rating was 2001 against an average rating of 1981. (As you know, I don't get an official rating until 5 games have been played.) USCF's rating calculator came up with 2223. I'm guessing that there is a built in deflation for the first five games, but that's just a guess.
Also Vish, Queens are worth 9 points. Not 10.
My new FIDE account only has two games, and my official performance rating was 2001 against an average rating of 1981. (As you know, I don't get an official rating until 5 games have been played.) USCF's rating calculator came up with 2223. I'm guessing that there is a built in deflation for the first five games, but that's just a guess.
Strange. Well, I have no idea what happened there, but from general (and rather long) experience I can tell you that there shouldn't be a large difference between FIDE performance ratings and the USCF performance ratings you calculated. If you score 75%, the performance should be about 200 points above the opponents' average rating.
Rumo, a friend of mine posted how FIDE calculates initial ratings. Apparently in some Swiss situations when there aren't enough games to create an initial rating, they take the average rating and add 20 points for every .5 above a 50% score. I really don't quite understand it. It's possible that they go back and recalculate the ratings after several games have been played. It's rather confusingly written.
Some sort of recalculation would certainly make sense. Otherwise I could pay (well, I don't have enough money, but you get the idea) Magnus Carlsen to play a long match with my dog Joey. Joey would lose 0-10, and end up having an initial elo rating of 2653, which would make him not only the strongest dog, but also the strongest non-GM in the world! (The norms might be harder to achieve.)
How much is FIDE per year?
How much is FIDE per year?
If you are asking about OTB, only national federations pay to be members. If you are asking about their online site, just go check it out.
Even if your dog lost 10-0 vs Magnus--that would be quite an achievement for your dog to learn to play chess and so he/she would deserve the highest rating for dogs.
Not really. He would simply lose on time 10 times, probably falling asleep next to the board or trying his teeth on one of the pieces.
try this 1350 puzzle you can also find it on my profile!
I think the site uses USCF rules rather than FIDE rules to determine "insufficient losing chances".