Chess rating system

The Glicko rating system is very interesting, although it took me a few reads to really understand how it worked. viswanathan pointed out some of the configurations of this system that I love so much. Erik wrote an interesting piece on the subject if I remember correctly. Hunadora makes a very valid and interesting point regarding rating systems. Since a rating system looks at the overall picture it often doesn't account for the minute details of incredibly well played games and really dumb blunders (of which I have made many - dumb blunders. I only get credit for one great game so far, but the level of intoxication achieved by my opponent probably accounts for my momentary genius).

I find the hardest thing for any mathematical formula/software program to do is accounting for the infinite number of subtle highs and lows in our tactics and game. It's simply the nature of mathematics. You cannot have a one size fits all formula, but this is off topic and better reserved for my next blog.

EVeryone starts at 1200

I don't even bother with ratings. My rating has pretty much just gone down since I started and I don't care. You can just play unrated. Sometimes I do. (I think it's less stressful, so I can have more fun. Besides, that's why I'm playing - not for ratings)

I tend to agree with percheron. I play because I love that game. I'm not particularly good at it, but I enjoy it. I get the fact that we are ego driven animals and need to feed the ego, but sometimes it becomes too much. I like playing an unrated game, not because I'm so bad that it's the only game I can play, but because it's pure enjoyment. Of course, I was told by someone here that if I played better I might appriciate the rating system. This was the same guy that claimed that a kid dropped on his head had a better system of tactics. My reply? I just laughed it off. Come on, play for the love of the game. However, if rating systems are important to you the system used here is absolutely great! Read the article on it twice and take notes. You'll see that it is an incredibly accurate system that covers most of the nuances of a point based system.

I don't think of ratings as a way to show how good you are at chess, they're a way to put people of different skills with those of their own level. I think if I'm not very good, my rating will go down, and I can put in a lower maximum rating in my games. That way I can have fun playing people of my own level.

 But then, presumably, they would continue to play those rated higher then them, but by the same margain, giving them back the higher rating that they lost.  Great article at the beginning...though very confusing. 

That is the entire point to ratings. To match up players with other individuals playing at the same level. Again, there are times when the rating system cannot cover all of the factors of human game play. If the novice player suddenly hits upon a combination of moves that changes the game in his or her favor, but it's a one time only situation (say, for example because the player just read some on this tactic and will soon forget it after the game), this will be reflected but may raise the player's rating prematurely. By this I mean that the player in question might play the next rated game poorly enough to loose more points that were gained in the previous game. I guess what I'm saying is that any rating system,  no matter how sophisticated, will have mathematical flaws in it because it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to completely account for human flaws and emotional playing within a finite equation. Now I really don't want to play rated games. I've given myself a headache with all this finite mathematical nonsense! Oh Yuk! Ignore all the typos, English was not my major (or even minor) in school.

 Thqat makes no sense at all.  Just because one game is timed, every other game should be timed?  Nonsense!  To prove something, you have to know that it is true in ALL cases, not only one.  I started playing chess without a timer when I learned.  If you and your opponent agree that there is no time limit, then there is no time limit!  Of course, Chess.com does not allow that, but playing against people in real life and doing so with no time constraints doesn't wreck the game. 

It would be nice if they could let you set the time to forever... I usually lose on time because often I'm really busy with work. (well, maybe other things besides work, too...)

But then people would just leave losing matches and you would never get the win recorded!

well, I meant for just regular old games, not matches. like sometimes my friends play me and it's just for fun, but while were busy with our more important games, we run out of time and never get to finish it.

hello everybody,

I'm new in chess.com. Isn't there a board where we can try some moves during the game without submitting them..... if i want to try 5 or 6 moves ahead what should i do?

I think you click on the "moves" tab and at the bottom you click on the analysis board. and welcome to chess.com!

This question gets asked a lot on ratings topics, but I haven't seen it answered....if it's been asked and answered 14 times on earlier pages of this thread, sorry:

when your ratings change, is it by the amount shown when you accepted the challenge? or are ratings fluctuations DURING the game taken into account too?

see? 

ILLYRA:

There is a forum focused on the question.  I couldn't find it, but if someone else would kindly do so and post the link?

I don't understand your question.

Mine? 

There is a forum that answers Illyra's question and I couldn't find it, but I have read it.  I want someone else to find it for me so I don't have to search through 150 forums with the word "Rating" in them...

Chess is like a war.plan the battle and if your aponent is formideble,starve him out ,the time should not matter to you...

But only if you can play faster then him.  If he plays faster, then he starves you out!