Chess rating system

so how does it work I dont want to read the whole thing

win you gain points lose you loose pts draw you gain or loose pts depending on opponents rating. the higher rating your opponent is the more points you get if you win and vice versa.

How does the ratings here compare to i.e FIDE's? Is there a way to tell how much a 2000 FIDE rated person would have here on Chess.com?

 Not really. You have different rating systems, different populations, different skill sets. A 2000 FIDE would likely have a higher rating here, but how much higher would really depend on the player.

Different populations and different skill sets can't be used as an argument in this question. Ratings are based on skills (how well you perform over a set of time/games) - and it doesn't segregate. A 2000 rated FIDE player in Norway is approximately as good as a 2000 rated FIDE player from Spain.

But my question was if there is a way to measure Chess.com ratings up against FIDE ratings so that us without a FIDE rating can make a qualified guess of how good we are based on our rating on chess.com.

It certainly matters. Online play and OTB play are not the same, and involve a different mix of skills. And since ratings are based indirectly on skills, it will have an effect on the ratings.

And we're not talking about the same populations. It's not Spain vs. Norway, it's FIDE vs. Chess.com. The FIDE players will be approximately the same because their both FIDE players. The problem is that ratings aren't directly based on skills, they are based on performance. They are measuring your expected performance against other players in the same rating pool. Chess.com is not the same rating pool as FIDE.

So the answer is, again, not really. The best I think you could do is give a 300-400 point range that the chess.com rating is likely to be in. But that's hypothetical, because we don't have good enough data to construct even that much of an estimate.

@ichabod801

I see we mostly agree about how things works with the ratings. I don't know how USCF measures ratings, but they differ from FIDE. Take Nakamura - he has a 2824 USCF rating, but his FIDE is approx 100 points less. This goes for Kamsky as well. Based on such comparisons (FIDE vs USCF and FIDE vs Chess.com) I would like to think that there is a way to estimate what your FIDE rating would be compared to your Chess.com rating.

But there are maybe other factors as well needed to be taken into account - like the fact that we can use databases for our openings. But that might even out with the fact that most of us play many games simultanously (hence lowering the quality of some games).

I still like to think there is a way to compare.

Yes the good news is ratings from the various governing bodies and dot.com sites are reasonably comparable and that is in essence their purpose of bringing together players, however remote they may be, under the one umbrella. The only variable of any significance should be their frequency of publication.

I personally think turn based chess online is ok for comparison purposes, but If you are demanding better proof between otb and online then look at the live chess area, its still open to abuse via pre moves, software use etc but its the most realistic option at the moment. 

Good Luck.

>:)

hiiiiiiiiiiii

 It should be known that players like myself climb the rating ladder.  I lost my first 2 games when I started here, and it dropped in the 900's.  Whenever I had to challenge openly, I had to play a bunch of 1100-1300s.  Also, in my tournaments, I consistently play players 300 points below my rating.  Just because my rating is, say 1800, and my average opponent is in the mid-1500's, doesn't mean I'm trying to pad my competition.  Some people here have friends who are hundreds of points below their own ratings, and has nothing to do with your ideology.

Also too, if a 2000 player is beating 1400 every game to gain 1 point (over the course of 1000 games), and never once lose, than they deserve to be where they're at, regardless if their lower.  It shows consistency.

I'm not sure if this has been posted but, http://www.lutanho.net/pgn/calc_elo.html

 There is some validity to the assumption that a player's rating is less reliable if they haven't played for a period of time.  Chess is like most games; if you don't play, your skill decreases (you become rusty), and the rating that you had in the past is not indicative of your present skill.  If we could bring Capablanca back from the dead, he would have to play for awhile to regain his past skill level. 

 The USCF starts people out as unrated, and calculates a provisional rating after each tournament.  The provisional rating, which becomes permanent after 25 games, is based on the player's win/loss record and his opponent's ratings.

How do the ratings here compare to the ratings on others chess sites? There was another site I played on before I discovered chess.com and my rating there was around 400 points higher than it is here. I suspect the people that play here are better, that's why I get whooped by lower rated players.

 The king doesn't have a value, he's priceless.

 I think it's a system within another grading system.  Seems to me there are 5 categories a Chess player falls into.

1. Beginner  2. Intermediate  3. Advanced  4. Master  5. Grandmaster 

I think ratings are more like a 'current form' guide.  A high rating suggests an opponent who is used to winning, but it doesn't matter unless you know the calibre of his opponents.  If you don't know then all you can deduce from the rating is that your opponent knows how to play Chess.

If your a beginner there's no need to know anything about ratings.  If your Intermediate you probably play at lot online or at a club but don't concern yourself with ratings.  Advanced players might take notice of ratings.  With Master & Grandmaster it goes with the territory.  All this stuff is probably the reason why Chess is broken into different 'federations', like boxing. I don't think any of it matters unless you play for a living!  Personally I feel that greatest player in the world is probably some old guy who plays in the park every day for the last 40 years, who doesn't use a clock and gives you a funny look if you talk about ratings. 

I am getting hammered ny Glicko in the tactcal problems section. I have dropped 300 points today I am getting +3 or 4 for solving and minus 15 and 16 for time or failing.

What is going on here have you tightened it up or am I getting dumber ??

This is the average rating that you can have.  During your first few games, your rating will change alot.  As you play more games, you will get our true rating based on how many you win or lose.

Ok, im confused, is it better to have a high rating or a low rating?

High