Chess rating system

On a related note, and out of geeky interest more than a care for the ratings... I know the rating of your opponent will affect how much your rating goes up or down by, but does anyone know if there's a difference in rating-impact between a resignation and a checkmate? Or is a win is a win (if that makes sense...)?
There is no rating impact between resignation, time loss, or checkmate.  A win is a win.  Now a stalemate (or perpetual check) is different.  It counts as a draw. 
I think rating is a very good idea. Ej. when we play domino, each player put one dollar on the table! it is not matter of money but you enjoy more the game when you win and get a few dollars. It's matter of a little more motivation to play.
Cheers billwall.

Here is an article on ratings!

fischer wrote: AlecKeen wrote: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.

Oh yes it does! How well you play includes how well you manage your time. Time is as much part of Chess as it is in other games. In football you could score the greatest goal in history, but if the referee blows time before it goes in it doesn't count. Similarly in Chess if you don't get your moves in within the time, you lose, and correctly so.

 I could be wrong, but I assume she's talking about blitz games. There are lots of people who are great blitz players but terrible in long games, and vice versa.


I have to agree with you!  One of my friends can only think an average of three moves aheed, but I can't seem to beet him in blitz!!  I think instink and exp have a lot to do with blitz.  Some people see the right move quickly, others (like me) take time to come up with right move.

viswanathan wrote:

...turtle, the general points system followed is as follows:

pawn - 1pt.

knight/bishop - 3pts.

rook - 5pts.

queen - 10pts.

of course points are not everything...


Correct me if I'm wrong, some books say the relative strength of the bishop is higher by a fraction of a point (1/4) -- 3 1/4 or whatever fraction, and queen is 9 points, and the king is 3 points.


I couldn't agree more sir.


That's normal, Mr. Matalino. That means you played exceptionally against those who have higher ratings than you.
I have heard the queen at about 9 points more often than 10. I always thought that was funny though. That would mean that one queen is worth more than all 8 pawns! I think point counting systems are a bad idea in general, and that each player should develop their own intuition as to how much certain material is worth in different situations.
I have been completely dominated in blitz games also. Throughout my entire adolescence, a game of chess was the entertainment for a night and always lasted at least an hour. The right move was almost always played, and you were to be patient if your opponent spent 20 min. on a given move. Then I entered a world where 15 min. was a reasonable time limit for all moves and felt as if I was playing an entirely different game.

Turtle, with respect to the rating system, all that matters is whether you win, lose, or draw. You could have ten pieces left or zero pieces left at the end of the game and it doesn't matter at all.

   Ratings are also important for two more reasons.   I can challenge people of equal rank or better if I desire (helps in matching).  Also as I do this it serves as a guage to see if I am improving personally at the game.

"some books say the relative strength of the bishop is higher by a fraction of a point (1/4) -- 3 1/4 or whatever fraction, and queen is 9 points, and the king is 3 points."


  Traditional - Q:9, R:5, B:3, N:3, P:1

  Kaufman - Q:9.75, R:5, B:3.25, N:3.25, P: 1, Bishop Pair:0.50 


Scoring systems can help you decide which trades are favorable and who's ahead, but be careful as they don't take into account positional considerations such as pawn structures, what square your knight is on, how safe your king is, etc.


Everyone knows a higher rating makes you a better person, increases your wealth, makes people nod in agreement when you speak, and whitens your teeth.

The hideous secret is that there IS NO RATING SYSTEM. They use a super-secret method to hand out ratings based on baseball statistics and tax forms.

In computing technology we just call it a random number generator.

Seriously, The rating is mainly useful for assessing your personal growth by just comparing it to your previous rating of a few months ago. Comparing ratings is like measuring your weight. It is a number that will change based on different variables. You weigh more after eating than before and you play better if you are rested than if you are fatigued.

It is best to just use your rating a few time a year. Most of use will have those 100 point drops and 100 point gains. so really your rating is just an estimate of the median of the range of your rating in chess.

Yes but for the most part, people play better in long games where they have time to think about their moves and let pressure mount, rating is like a reward showing your skill level compared to other players of course ratings aren't nessarly accurate and any chess player can have a bad day.
Bonjour je m'appelle Franck je suis Français et je suis un nouvel inscris...est ce que quelqu'un parle Français ?.....merci... tanks you 
Wink I have noticed a lot of players with a so called high rating, and the average rating of there opponent is say 300pts lower. so if a player played lower rated players all the time he would slowly accumulate an artificial high rating. I hope this makes sense.
Charlie91 wrote:viswanathan wrote:


Correct me if I'm wrong, some books say the relative strength of the bishop is higher by a fraction of a point (1/4) -- 3 1/4 or whatever fraction, and queen is 9 points, and the king is 3 points.

Obviously it's a point of view but IMHO the King ought to be set at infinity. Or, at least a point higher than the sum of points of all your pieces on board at any time.