demetrios18 wrote:
I have beaten many GM's and FM"s in blitz chess 5 min 5 increment. But have lost games or had a tougher time with much weaker opponents.
Can you provide us with a few of these games?
Chess rating system
Sort:
conman1000 wrote:
demetrios18 wrote:
I have beaten many GM's and FM"s in blitz chess 5 min 5 increment. But have lost games or had a tougher time with much weaker opponents.
Can you provide us with a few of these games?
Probably way too many to choose from : )
General-Lee wrote:
The queen is worth nine you imbecile!
You realize you just called Philidor, Euwe, and Lasker (among others) imbeciles, right?
Aug 30, 2009
0
#465
I wouldn't worry too much about chess ratings on here, as some people are better players online than they are otb (over the board) as they have more time to think. However, some are good at both.
Has anything happened on the site to change the points given out for winning? I was off-line and busy for a few weeks and my ranking dropped down. I just beat someone only 60 or so points ahead of me but got almost fifty points. I'm sure it used to be 15 or something.
Me too!
its so stupid!!!
ha ha
headofwords wrote:
Has anything happened on the site to change the points given out for winning? I was off-line and busy for a few weeks and my ranking dropped down. I just beat someone only 60 or so points ahead of me but got almost fifty points. I'm sure it used to be 15 or something.
It's called "Glicko rating system". What this system does is that if a player doesn't play for some time, in his next game he will gain or lose more points than if he had been playing every day. This is good, because in those 2 weeks in which player haven't been playing, his chess skill could have changed - he could have forgot some stuff or he could have learned some stuff.
http://math.bu.edu/people/mg/glicko/glicko.doc/glicko.html
"The problem with the Elo system that the Glicko system addresses has to do with the reliability of a player's rating. Suppose two players, both rated 1700, played a tournament game with the first player defeating the second. Under the US Chess Federation's version of the Elo system, the first player would gain 16 rating points and the second player would lose 16 points. But suppose that the first player had just returned to tournament play after many years, while the second player plays every weekend. In this situation, the first player's rating of 1700 is not a very reliable measure of his strength, while the second player's rating of 1700 is much more trustworthy. My intuition tells me that (1) the first player's rating should increase by a large amount (more than 16 points) because his rating of 1700 is not believable in the first place, and that defeating a player with a fairly precise rating of 1700 is reasonable evidence that his strength is probably much higher than 1700, and (2) the second player's rating should decrease by a small amount (less than 16 points) because his rating is already precisely measured to be near 1700, and that he loses to a player whose rating cannot be trusted, so that very little information about his own playing strength has been learned."
how can i get a chess rating?can i get a rating by rapid games or by regular 2hour per 40 move game or by 90min game play to finish?thanx in advance for your answers
sure_shock wrote:
how can i get a chess rating?can i get a rating by rapid games or by regular 2hour per 40 move game or by 90min game play to finish?thanx in advance for your answers
All you have to do to get ratings is play some games. You will get different ratings depending on the types of games you play: online, chess 960, and three different live ratings depending on the speed of the game.
Every body starts with1200, even if they are a grand master
A rating is a snapshot of a moving object. If you were to snap a picture of a train moving down a track, when you look at the picture, what you see is the spot where the train was at during that moment in its travel. It is the same way with chess ratings. Your rating is a snapshot of a constantly moving number. Don't think of it as a measure of your skill. Think of your rating as a frozen moment in the measure of your time within a system.
It's not even a snapshot so much as an impression.
Think of it more like where the train was calculated to be at the time of the last change of relative position based on the list of other trains it had been passed by and that it had passed and where those trains were calculated to be when they overtook or were overtaken.
I don't see the point in ratings on this site...
Sep 8, 2009
0
#476
Same reasons u have them for OTB. To guage what level/skill each person is roughly at to make it easier to select players you feel could give u a good game.
Sep 16, 2009
0
#477
chess ratings are fun ... i do take them seriously and like to be above 1600
As a new member, my first query has been answered here about my rating. cheers all 
looking for my friend respire
turtle, the general points system followed is as follows:
pawn - 1pt.
knight/bishop - 3pts.
rook - 5pts.
queen - 10pts.
of course points are not everything... the position of your piece also matters.. for example you might not mind losing a bishop or rook to save a pawn on the 7th row.. and points dont have any bearing on the game result.. it is just a basic framework to help beginners understand the value of different pieces
The queen is worth nine you imbecile!