1200 is the default rating chess.com gives you. Most chess websites do this. If you win games it goes up, and if you lose games it goes down.
Chess rating system
Sort:
Ooh blitz games...like trying to do accurate neurosurgery in 5 minutes 
Actually they can be a fun diversion----I just prefer the longer games.
Erik2 wrote:
justice_avocado wrote:
1361 is higher than 1200. this isn't golf.
Yes you're right
I was gonna say something about that but I think its been said well enough here! 
Having a rating on these sites just gives you an idea of how you have been doing and how strong (or weak) another player is---assuming everyone is playing to the best of their ability and not sitting with a computer chess game mirroring moves and using the computer's choice for their next move.
You can say you don't like it....but if there was NO rating shown I think people would be less inclined to play these games on here. It's a gauge for your playing strength and you can't say there isn't at least SOME appeal to that in everyone on here. We're human and we like to know where we stand---isn't that just human nature?
Above all enjoy the game...just don't let your rating or lack thereof eat you alive.
Yes, basic human nature. If there were no "stake" or reward people would lose interest quickly.
yes you are right
yes you are right
no he is nottttt
yes you are right
said lordjones3rd
no he is nottttt
also i don't like it because you feel disabled when it gives you a handicap of 1200 it makes you feel sad
do you go on http://play.clubpenguin.com/ you can have about 555 accounts!
I don't know why all sites seem to start ppl off at 1200 points, since OTB ratings tend to start at 1000. Starting at 1200 just leads to massively inflated ratings at the top.
Whipster,
Are you sure that OTB ratings start off at 1000? What is the FIDE policy? I think USCF starts out at 1200.
"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.Here are the pieces and info:Pawn 1p 8Rook 2p 2Knight 3p 2Bishop 3p 2Queen 9p 1King Never Captured 1Hope it is CORRECT! 
Is this Chaturanga?A1: YesA2: No
Apr 18, 2009
0
#355
i'm new to online chess, having played a few games in another site and now a few here. I find ratings of players seem high (given the standard of play) compared with what i remember of OTB games. I was a state ratings officer and played a lot years ago.
Interested in comments.
If there were no ratings many or most of the players wouldn't be here. Most of those who say they have no interest may be fooling themselves, but without some tangible event tied to the games people most would quickly move on.
Ratings police?
ralphsnider wrote:
i'm new to online chess, having played a few games in another site and now a few here. I find ratings of players seem high (given the standard of play) compared with what i remember of OTB games. I was a state ratings officer and played a lot years ago.
Interested in comments.
Ratings are relative measures of skill. As such, they are dependent on the population that they are generated from. The same player in two different populations will have two different ratings. Also, if you're comparing OTB to correspondence, it's two different skill sets being measured.
Apr 19, 2009
0
#358
Very true ichabod801. They are two very different skills although I tend to find that people under 1800 just play it like OTB; they don't really research their moves. I tend to find that chess.com ratings are higher than OTB ones, but the aim is hardly to match them.
OG
It's marketing strategy. Just like chess books... ask any retailer and they will tell you people tend to buy books that are too advanced for them... Chess.com makes us feel good by slightly inflated ratings...and so do other most internet sites... There is no one in the world over 2800 at this point... but you will find 3,000's regular on ICC, PLaychess.com etc. lol
Yes you're right