Chess rating system

Sort:
Avatar of move46

The sands of time take us all. At least in chess, we may know how much time we have: and that is all we have to play the game. I don't play blitz a lot yet, but it will be forthcoming. Try playing some longer time games for awhile, then less time as you feel comfortable with it. 

I do not know the openings, so that takes too much of my time. That means I should learn the openings.

Avatar of Michael_L25

importantheart wrote:

 

Let's hope.

 

200 pages let's go!

Avatar of JimmyL101

Are the higher chess.com tactics under rated? I've jumped from a pretty much static 1650 rating for the past few months to 1900+.

I don't I've gotten that much better at tactics, to be honest it seems a lot of the higher rated ones are surprisingly over rated. There was a 2175 rating that was quite simple (and the comments said similar). https://www.chess.com/tactics/163574

Seems like there's theres a steady set of difficult questions around 1600 and then not much of a jump/decrease in difficulty after that?

Avatar of futureminime
JimmyL101 wrote:

Are the higher chess.com tactics under rated? I've jumped from a pretty much static 1650 rating for the past few months to 1900+.

I don't I've gotten that much better at tactics, to be honest it seems a lot of the higher rated ones are surprisingly over rated. There was a 2175 rating that was quite simple (and the comments said similar). https://www.chess.com/tactics/163574

Seems like there's theres a steady set of difficult questions around 1600 and then not much of a jump/decrease in difficulty after that?

My experience has been that there is a big spread of what I personally find difficult in terms of puzzle rating (I get puzzles I cant solve at 1700 but get ones that are easy at 2450. I'm not that surprised as there will be some variation in what tactical motifs I am better at but I think the answer is the number isn't supposed to represent how HARD a puzzle is, but how well a person of that rating would perform.

Ratings are more that just a result of tactical skill. A strong strategic player who has prepared a few lines will often beat a strong tactical player. The end result is that stronger players may not get certain puzzles and then the puzzles become ranked higher.

 

The other side of it is the numbers are just the performance stats from the site. I' consider myself about at a 1450 player, but my tactics rating is much higher. I don't think this means my tactics are as good as an average player of that higher elo .

Avatar of JimmyL101

I think that's a fair assessment too, I was just finding it interesting that I was stuck around 1650 for so long and there has been a jump to 1950 now without that much of an issue. I don't think my play is 300 points better than it was before.

 

It would be interesting to see what your true rating was if you played some more games!

 

 

Avatar of Samicks

Hoje sai uma vitória no Match pelo Mundial!!!!

Avatar of blueemu
importantheart wrote:

What language are you speaking in?

Portugese?

Avatar of Unruh70

justice_avocado wrote:

1361 is higher than 1200. this isn't golf.

lol

Avatar of Unruh70

fuzbuz77 wrote:

justice_avocado wrote: 1361 is higher than 1200. this isn't golf.


You mean I've been on the wrong site all this time?... Wink

lmao

Avatar of abde20

h

ello

 

Avatar of abde20

tongue.png

Avatar of etemplado

Why some of my games remain unrated?

Avatar of carollewis

Oh I don't understand anything about the rating..... I'm staggered by some of the daily problem solutions. Perhaps I'd better give up chess! 🙄

Avatar of Bertil2018
Is rating on Chess.com equal to Elo? What does it mean that I have consistently 1730 on lessons, 1400 on problem resolution and 1004 in actual chess games (30 min)? Thanks!
Avatar of spdnitian

am I blocked here?

Avatar of mudduchintha
justice_avocado wrote:
1361 is higher than 1200. this isn't golf.

Hahaha

Avatar of XaajiXaaji

the rating system is good ..

Avatar of NoTidd

Cool

Avatar of shnitez

if you improve in tactics

Avatar of shnitez

and in strategy