Chess rating system

thats me lol

thx to staff and help that we dont start at 500

A little correction Queen = 9 pts:

Standard valuations

The following is the most common assignment of point values (Capablanca & de Firmian 2006:24-25) (Soltis 2004:6) (Silman 1998:340).

Pieces	Symbol	Value
pawn		1
knight		3
bishop		3
rook		5
queen		9

Alternate valuations

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.

Several systems give the bishop slightly more value than the knight. A bishop is usually slightly more powerful than a knight, but not always – it depends on the position (Evans 1967:73, 76), (Mayer 1997:7). A chess-playing program was given the value of 3 for the knight and 3.4 for the bishop, but that difference was acknowledged to not be real (Mayer 1997:5).

[edit] Historical valuations

An 1813 book (source unknown, perhaps by Jacob Sarratt) gives these valuations of the pieces:

• pawn 2 at the start, 3¾ in the endgame
• knight 9¼
• bishop 9¾
• rook 15
• queen 23¾
• king as attack piece (in the endgame) 6½

If these values are divided by three and rounded, they are more in line with the valuations used now:

• pawn 0.7 in the beginning, 1.3 in the endgame
• knight 3.1
• bishop 3.3
• rook 5
• queen 7.9
• king as attacking piece in the endgame 2.2

Howard Staunton in The Chess-Player's Handbook notes that piece values are dependent on the position and the phase of the game (the queen typically less valuable toward the endgame), but gives these values, without explaining how they were obtained (Staunton 1870, 30–31):

• pawn 1.00
• knight 3.05
• bishop 3.50
• rook 5.48
• queen 9.94

In the 1817 edition of Philidor's Studies of Chess, the editor (Peter Pratt) gave the same values.

The 1843 German book Handbuch des Schachspiels by Paul Rudolf von Bilguer gave

• pawn 1.5
• knight 5.3
• bishop 5.3
• rook 8.6
• queen 15.5

When normalizing so that a pawn equals one:

• pawn 1
• knight 3.5
• bishop 3.5
• rook 5.7
• queen 10.3

Yevgeny Gik gave these figures based only on average mobility:

• pawn 1
• knight 2.4
• bishop 4
• rook 6.4
• queen 10.4
• king 3 (as an attacking and defensive piece)

but Andrew Soltis points out problems with that chart and other mathematical methods of evaluation (Soltis 2004:10-12).

Emanuel Lasker gave these approximate values: (Lasker 1934:73)

• Knight = 3 pawns (3 points)
• Bishop = knight (3 points)
• Rook = knight plus 2 pawns (5 points)
• queen = 2 rooks = 3 knights (10 or 9 points)
• king = knight + pawn (4 points)

[edit] More recent evaluations

World Champion Emanuel Lasker (Lasker 1947:107) gave the following values (here scaled and rounded so pawn = 1 point):

• pawn = 1 (on average)
• knight = 3½
• bishop = 3½ (on average)
• rook = 5 (on average)
• queen = 8½.

However Lasker adjusts some of these depending on the starting positions, with pawns nearer the centre, and bishops/rooks on the kingside, being worth more:

• centre (d/e-file) pawn = 1½ points, a/h-file pawn = ½ point
• c-file bishop = 3½ points, f-file bishop = 3¾ points
• a-file rook = 4½ points, h-file rook = 5¼ points.

According to Burgess, Lasker (in his book Lasker's Chess Manual) gave these relative values for the early part of the game (Burgess 2000:491):

• rook pawn: ½
• knight pawn: 1¼
• bishop pawn: 1½
• central pawn: 2
• knight: 4½
• queen bishop: 4½
• king bishop: 5
• queen rook: 6
• king rook: 7
• queen: 11

Grandmaster Larry Evans gives the values:

• pawn = 1
• knight = 3½
• bishop = 3¾ ^[1]
• rook = 5
• queen = 10 (Evans 1967:73, 76).

Another system is used by Max Euwe and Hans Kramer in Volume 1 of their The Middlegame, with values

• pawn = 1
• knight = 3½
• bishop = 3½
• rook = 5½
• queen = 10.

Bobby Fischer gave the values:

• pawn = 1
• knight = 3
• bishop = 3¼
• rook = 5
• queen = 9 (Fischer, Mosenfelder & Margulies 1972:14).

I. A. Horowitz also gave the bishop slightly more value than the knight, three plus "a small fraction" (Horowitz 1951:11).

An early Soviet chess program used

• pawn = 1
• knight = 3½
• bishop = 3½
• rook = 5
• queen = 9½ (Soltis 2004:6).

Another popular system is

• pawn = 1
• knight = 3
• bishop = 3
• rook = 4½
• queen = 9 (Soltis 2004:6).

[edit] Larry Kaufman's research

Grandmaster Larry Kaufman performed a computer analysis of thousands of games by masters to determine the average relative value of the pieces. He determined (to the nearest ¼ point) the following:

• pawn = 1
• knight = 3¼
• bishop = 3¼
• rook = 5
• queen = 9¾.

Add an additional ½ point for having both bishops. Kaufman elaborates about how the values of knights and rooks change, depending on the number of pawns on the board: "A further refinement would be to raise the knight's value by 1/16 and lower the rook's value by ⅛ for each pawn above five of the side being valued, with the opposite adjustment for each pawn short of five." (Kaufman 1999).

[edit] Hans Berliner's system

World Correspondence Chess Champion Hans Berliner gives the following valuations, based on experience and computer experiments:

• pawn = 1
• knight = 3.2
• bishop = 3.33
• rook = 5.1
• queen = 8.8

There are adjustments for the rank and file of a pawn and adjustments for the pieces depending on how open or closed the position is. Bishops, rooks, and queens gain up to 10 percent more value in open positions and lose up to 20 percent in closed positions. Knights gain up to 50 percent in closed positions and lose up to 30 percent in the corners and edges of the board. The value of a good bishop may be 10 percent or more than that of a bad bishop (Berliner 1999:14-18).

Finally, about thequeen / two rooks, never forget the value is relative at different moments of the game:

Changing valuations in the endgame

The relative value of pieces changes as a game progresses to the endgame. The relative value of pawns and rooks may increase, and the value of bishops may increase also, though usually to a lesser extent. The knight tends to lose some power, and the strength of the queen may be slightly lessened, as well. Some examples follow.

• A queen versus two rooks

• In the middlegame they are equal
• In the endgame, the two rooks are somewhat more powerful. With no other pieces on the board, two rooks are equal to a queen and a pawn

Here is an endgame example : «The Queen against both Rooks» :

DIAG 1: White to play

Judgment: In the present position it is practically obvious that the endgame is a draw:
i) None of both pawn is able to reach the promotion.
ii) The White King will be unable to escape checks from the Black Queen.
iii) White Rooks are coordinated, preventing the White Queen from capturing one of them.

The game may continue as follows:

1.Re7+ Kh6 2.Rfe3 Qc2+ 3.Kf3 Qf5+ 4.Kg2 Qd5+ 5.Kf2 Qd2+ 6.Kf3 a4 7.R7e6+ ½-½

2^o) The Queen against three minor pieces

The combat between a Queen and three minor pieces is particularly captivating and uncertain. At this subject, Tarrasch (p.303 in the same ouvrage) expresses himself like this: «...It is the same with regard to minor pieces. Those must always be well defended by pawns. If they are not, their loss is about always certain in the combat against the Queen.»

One can easily moderate or in any case supplement the opinion expressed by Tarrasch. Thus, for example, two Knights protecting one another constitute, for the Queen, an indestructible block (if a Queen makes face with three minor pieces she cannot all the same, except in very exceptional situations - like an immediate promotion -, sacrifice herself against one of them!). We make here similar remarks that those done, in the preceding paragraph, about confrontation between a Queen and two Rooks: the relative value of Queen and minor pices depends from many factors, among which:

Ops, forgot to cite the font:

http://www.chess-theory.com/enthcct04_value_pieces_chess_learn_free_lesson.php

Thanks for the good information!!!

The only problem I have with the current rating system for online (Or "correspondance") play is that the Glicko seems to stay permenantly high. I usually finish one or two game per day, and yet my glicko rating is still 77. Shouldn't it be going down as I play more and more games?

That's your rating deviation, not your rating. Your rating is 1934. 77 is a measure of how accurate that rating is.

This may be related to rating, or it may be covered somewhere else, but what are the diamonds and crowns symbols of?  Some level of accomplishment I would think, but what?

Members who have payed this site so as to support it and have extra features not offered to the ones who dont pay.

One bizarre qwirk of this system is that when it tells the rating og the players you beat it gives their rating AFTER they lose their points: it was higher when I was playing them.  That's the rating I beat.  Not too important but it really bugs me.

The rating system used here is NOT the elo system. You can go to the FAQs to learn more. I don't think 1200 is exactly the "Average" in the elo system.

i am interested to see where my rating here setlles down. I hadnt played chess for 27  years till last week .

My rating was bcf162 when i "retired",should it have gone down a lot from not playing? i certainly cant remember any opening theory anymore! According to my dodgy maths bcf162 would tally with a rating here of circa 1900 so have a long way to go yet.

Just play chess  and  have fun with it  , rating is not important at all  at this point .

Here I thought the initial 1200pts was a welcoming gift, like a signing bonus, when you join.  This makes me feel less loved!

ratings are just a measure of your progress, or lack of it

True, barnbybob, true.

OG

This system stinks!!  My friend just joined but he hasnt played chess in years. The first timme he lost he lost like 400 points ! When he improved, his rating wound go up by 10  or 15 because he played a lot of games!!!