thanks
Chess rating system
Sort:
Becca wrote:
Rating has its place but its not the most important thing. Sometimes you can lose a game on time and it will seriously affect your rating this has nothing to do with how well you play.
especially if you have over 10 games going on
Wow, how did you get all that?
Feb 24, 2009
0
#305
There are actually 5 ratings on chess.com:
1. Correspondence rating
2. Quick rating (live chess)
3. Blitz rating (live chess)
4. Long rating (live chess)
5. Tactics trainer rating
OG
ok ( this is for people who have played in tourney or who know people who have played in tourneys or have readed it) do we start in fide chess at the rating 1200 or 1000 or ( if ther another rating ).
ok ( this is for people who have played in tourney or who know people who have played in tourneys or have readed it) do we start in fide chess at the rating 1200 or 1000 or ( if ther another rating ).
so the bishop is either a little higher or equal interresting
For FIDE chess rating you have to play official games, when I'm correct at least 9, against rated opponents. With some formulas they can calculate your rating. This can be an 1100 rating but also an 2100. This depends on your score and the ratings of your opponents.
Matalino wrote:
Will Chess.com rating system see people rated over 3000 by the end of 2009? The highest rated is around 2800 and was about 2701 in February. If he continues at that rate of climb he'd be 3000 by May or June.
One wonders if by the year 2010 the highest rated would be around 4000.
Are our Chess.Com top players really that GM or World Champion strong?
It's certainly possible when you consider that he plays all of his games at 14 day move intervals so that he can postpone his losses and draws as long as possible. Last I checked he had a couple of lost games that were approaching their first birthday....
xbigboy wrote:
erik wrote:
everyone starts at 1200. then as you play you get a new rating. it is all based on the Glicko ratings system :) check it out - it's a fun read!
http://math.bu.edu/people/mg/glicko/glicko.doc/glicko.html
I'm good at math, but that makes almost no sense at all.
As an assembly-line worker with a 5th grade education, I will try to put rating into layman's terms for everyone!
The population of all players looks like a big hill. Let's say that we're looking at the side of the hill, and on the right side, where the hill becomes flat again, there are the very best players. Since there are not so many players that are really, really good, there are only a few there, and so the hill is not very high.
The same thing happens over on the left side of the hill. There are just a few players over there, and they are the players that are not very good. Once again, the hill is not very high there.
In the middle of the hill, there are a lot of players. These are the players who are kinda average - they win just about as many games as they lose. Since there are a lot of players here, the hill is very high.
They drop you onto the top of the hill, and you can move either towards one side, or towards the other side. All that matters is how many games you win or lose, although there is a bit of a catch...
Whenever you play someone else on the hill, most of the time one of you will win, and the other will lose (although sometimes it's a draw). Either way, you will either move towards the right side or the left side. The amount that you move is based on how many games you've played in total, and how recently it's been since you finished a game. This is called your ratings deviation (RD). If your ratings deviation is a big number, that means you move a lot. If it's small, you don't move very much at all.
This is further modified by your opponent's rating. If you win against someone who is very good, you should move up more than if they are not-so-good.
I hope this helps people to understand rating a little better. As for my 5th grade education, I guess I should clarify that I didn't exactly stop after 5th grade... 
Matalino wrote:
Will Chess.com rating system see people rated over 3000 by the end of 2009? The highest rated is around 2800 and was about 2701 in February. If he continues at that rate of climb he'd be 3000 by May or June.
One wonders if by the year 2010 the highest rated would be around 4000.
Are our Chess.Com top players really that GM or World Champion strong?
That's just the strongest player within our population. The rating here isn't the same as the rating there because that's a different population of players.
If someone wins all the time, their rating goes up, but eventually they run out of opponents who can push it higher (they reach the end of the hill). In order to hit 3000, we'd need more players, and especially more players at the very highest levels, and the leader would have to beat them all.
I wouldn't say that such a thing is impossible, as there have been tournaments where the leader of the tournament performed at a "3000+ strength" on that particular day (both Fischer and Kasparov had "burst" ratings over 3000; if anyone else comes to mind, please let me know), but in order to maintain that rating, you would have to have an unbeaten record. Based on the number of draws and losses, even among the very best players, it's very hard to push yourself past the end of the curve and stay up there for an extended period of time. This is not to say that someone could come along in the near future and be so good as to be unbeatable. There are records being broken in sports all the time.
MadnessRed wrote: Although the 1/3/3/5/9 system of point totals is generally accepted, many other systems of valuing pieces have been presented. They have mostly been received poorly, although the point system itself falls under similar criticism, as all systems are very rigid and generally fail to take positional factors into account.
Chess engines are very good at evaluating position and material. Most of the time they are very close (within .001 of the real value). Even if two different engines are not in complete agreement, the theory behind the values matches the relative values that are usually given for the position in books (i.e., +1.00 means white is up a pawn).
Keep in mind that your rating and the rating of a game's position have nothing to do with each other. For example, your Elo would not be affected by the fact that you were down a rook when you managed to pull a win out of your butt. 
dbalanza2 wrote: ...well let's say I have 1200 rating and start a game against a 1500 player, while this game lasts I lose 5 games and decrease my rating to 900. Then I win against the 1500 guy and increase to 1300. That seems somehow unfair to me because the 1500 guy didn't expect to lose 400 rating points against a 1200...
Doesn't matter. You guys started the game with the same pieces. He doesn't get a bonus because he's ranked higher - he still has to beat you.
Your rating isn't really exact either. Because of the way probability works, your actual rating is somewhere within a cloud of numbers, where the range is your ratings deviation (RD). There's no way to tell what someone's exact rating is - it would require an infinite number of games.
Since you will play a game tomorrow... and that game will be either won or lost... unless you can tell the future... there really is no way to know. He plays against you, thinking you are 1200? When you really are 900? It's a moot point. And if you beat him 6 months from now, are you still 900? It's only a guess, not a guarantee.
Everyone starts with a standered rating which is 1200. As you win more games, you improve and so does your rating. If you ever lose a game, your rating may fall a bit.
"The process of rating players can be compared to the measurement of the position of a cork bobbing up and down on the surface of agitated water with a yard stick tied to a rope and which is swaying in the wind."
Arpad Elo, Chess Life, 1962
Have Great Day—Sali
http://www.chess.com/photos/view_album/SALICRUP/chess-pics
I'm new to the site I dont like quick timed games I like to play at aslow thinking pace Why must I learn to play so fast. They set me up on an on line game where you have three days to move always waiting for opponent to move I prefer 30 min or longer games suggestions please
Welcome, Harry.
I'm a little confused because you indicate that you don't like fast games but then you say you don't like the three days per move. If you want, you can set up a live game and select the amount of minutes you want for the game. Then, the person who agrees to play you will be agreeing to that time. I hope this helps.
The ting's to have fun,not worry about your rating.
Hello, I am new here. I have got a question. What games i need to play to be rated games. I am currantly playing my first game here, it's a corespond game, is it for rating or not. Thanks. PS. Sorry for my bad english.
You will receive ratings for correspondence chess as well as for live chess, but they will be two separate ratings--one rating for each.