why are gms rated because they are all GMs
Chess rating system
Sort:
The rating system is an extremely accurate predictor of odds of winning or losing.
AWSmith61 wrote:
The rating system is an extremely accurate predictor of odds of winning or losing.
Ratings are a measure of past performance and can give probable outcomes based on rating differences.
A lot of us play for fun but the better at chess you get the more serious you become - like all sports and games.
1200 is a lot of money
i dont understand the ratings - i just play for fun x
I think the rating system in chess is the best there is in any sport - it seems to make complete sense to me. All my opponents are around the same rating as me which means I get a decent game every time and at my standard.
1200 is not the average rating is tit?
you need to specify What rating you are talking about?
for example the average rating of all blitz players is different than the average rating of rapid players...
and uscf ratings (or any other OTB ratings) are also different.
Komodo Dragons Kill With Venom, Researchers Find. Komodo dragons kill using a one-two punch of sharp teeth and avenomous bite, scientists have confirmed for the first time. The find dispels the common belief that toxic bacteria in the Komodos' mouths are responsible for ultimately killing thedragons' prey.
[COMMENT DELETED]
is playing the computer at 1400 the same as playing a human at the same level....was that a dumb question...im really trying to increase my ratingm..im stuck at about 1000...😣😣😣
whats is the rating on daily chess about??😊..vs...my rating on my 15mn games?
I am a rating junkie. I threaten to kill kittens when I'm in a winning position. I get fuming, raging angry when I lose just about any game. I admit, chess is fun still. How is it still fun despite my rating obsession? My rating is how well I have played. And it burns me up that I'm not playing at 2700 FIDE level. Who to get mad at? Only myself. 8) That's what's so nice about ratings. They are a very real prediction of how well you will play. I will admit, it is a RUSH when I beat someone. Losing is a rush too. It's infuriating, but who to be mad at? Again, only ever myself for the loss. It's a healthy way to look at chess. But I am absolutely a rating chaser. I study and study and study but ultimately it's my concentration that seems to win more games. If I play tired or if I don't have my A-Brain running, I tend to lose. Chess is just the most beautiful game ever. I run almost all of my games through stockfish afterwards and I hunt for mistakes.
There are several systems for the value of pieces, and some rate the bishop as 3.25 and/or the Queen as 9.
11hub: Daily Chess rating is 'correspondence chess'. You have days to complete each move. I *think* it's OK to use databases but not a computer engine for those. I'd love some official comment or reference to chess.com's rules for daily chess and databases. I never use them in it b/c well... it smells like cheating and I don't see the point of playing chess if one's going to cheat. My rating is mine. And I really play against my own mind.
Regarding playing a computer that claims to be 1400. Chess.com doesn't have a lot of data about how a chess.com rating translates to a USCF or FIDE rating. Some studies have been done, but they are old and I don't know how accurate they were. What you can know from your rating is that after you play ~20 games, your rating will be pretty accurate as a predictor of your performance against other players who have played ~20 games. The way the math works out is you have a 50% chance of beating someone at the same rating. I'm not so sure about the odds vs someone 100 points higher but in my own games I win about 45% (?) of the games vs +100 rated players. The ratings system used here is a form of the ELO rating system which is accurate enough for betting agents to actually figure odds for matches and make money the same way a casino does. I'm fascinated with how accurate the rating system is.
However... the rating system doesn't take into account 'life agro'. Such as the kids or an invalid mother-in-law interrupting a game for something. So if you are playing someone who suffers from life aggro, you may have a bit of trouble if they are playing in a situation where there is no life aggro.
AWSmith61 wrote:
Regarding playing a computer that claims to be 1400. Chess.com doesn't have a lot of data about how a chess.com rating translates to a USCF or FIDE rating. Some studies have been done, but they are old and I don't know how accurate they were. What you can know from your rating is that after you play ~20 games, your rating will be pretty accurate as a predictor of your performance against other players who have played ~20 games. The way the math works out is you have a 50% chance of beating someone at the same rating. I'm not so sure about the odds vs someone 100 points higher but in my own games I win about 45% (?) of the games vs +100 rated players. The ratings system used here is a form of the ELO rating system which is accurate enough for betting agents to actually figure odds for matches and make money the same way a casino does. I'm fascinated with how accurate the rating system is.
With regards to this fragment; you are expected to win 36% of the time against opponents rated exactly 100 points higher than you. The probability of winning is 0.36. Winning about 45% against a pool of opponents would mean, on average, you are rated ~35 elo lower.
If there is a 200 or 300 rating gap the probability of winning slims to 0.24, respectively 0.15.
AWSmith61 wrote:
11hub: Daily Chess rating is 'correspondence chess'. You have days to complete each move. I *think* it's OK to use databases but not a computer engine for those. I'd love some official comment or reference to chess.com's rules for daily chess and databases. I never use them in it b/c well... it smells like cheating and I don't see the point of playing chess if one's going to cheat. My rating is mine. And I really play against my own mind.
...
Basically, for Daily, no engines, tablebases, or actual people giving you moves. Books, databases (that don't contain a bunch of numerical computer evaluations and are mostly human vs human games), videos, magazines, etc are allowed to be referred to in ongoing games.
No, it's how the game is played. Learn to like it or quit. Easy