Chess rating system

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?

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.

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

i noticed that a bishop is not worth 3 points but actually 3.25

is that true at chess.com as well or did I read something wrong somewhere?

I cant remember where I read that.

Also.......I prefer knights far better when I'm in the end game over Bishops?

your thoughts?

ratings are tough because you might play a person rated 1320 on their way to becoming an 1800 before anyone gives them a good game.

Don't let a loss get you down!

learn from any mistakes and grow to be a better player by losing.

Nice

btw try this http://c.age.mybrute.com

I might beable tp help you if you tell me what you mean 1200

There are no points in chess, so it's not possible to get this "wrong".

It's a simplification, some person's opinion that he knows is wrong, but could help for some beginners. A rule of thumb. Once you're arguing whether it's actually 9 rather than 10, or perhaps it's 8.5, you're missing the point. Forget about points and look at the actual position.

who is the person with the highest rating in this web?

cant find it!

My rating just went DOWN two points after winning. Admittedly I beat someone about 200 pts lower than me, but still... wtf!?

derUbermensch, look carefully at your rating history. You were rated 1470, then you lost, drew, and won. The net result was your rating going down 2 points and it is now 1468. You lost more points in the loss than you gained in the win.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the rating next to the name in the game history is your rating as result of that game.

I was 1470. I lost and went down to 1463. I drew and went up to 1470. *My score after the draw was 1470*. The next game to finish was the in, after which my score was 1468. I certainly see that the net result of all this was a 2 point decrease, but I still don't see how it works when lain out sequentially, as I was under the impression scores were calculated on an as finished basis, not in some bulk unit.

The rating next to your name after your draw is 1463.

Hmm... now I look foolish :( I just had looked at the number... my opponent was the 1470  

hi

You start out on 1200 in uchess as well.

draw??

queen is only 9 points isnt it?