I beat someone who had over 100 points higher than me and it said "null" and I got no points and I don't think he lost any. The rating system is screwed.
Chess rating system
Sort:
Weird. I think the ratingformula is weird. A player played only 4 games, won all, rating raised from 1200 to 2037......weird
I think over OTB rating is harder to get
hblume wrote:
are the chess.com ratings meaningful off the site? if you tell someone your elo rating is, say, 1500, do you have to add your chess.com elo rating is, say, 1500?
No. Chess ratings are relative. That is, combining it with your opponent's rating gives an estimate of your score. But they have to be rated in the same pool of players. Your chess.com rating is only relevant when playing here. Your USCF rating is only relevant in USCF tournament. Your FIDE rating is only relevant in FIDE tournaments. And so on.
i will tell u but first shut up im good at cheess ok if ur down with i got 3 words for ya we hate 
hahaa im never lost
lol!!! hi all!!!! how are you?!?
lolz people... just play the game.
This site has a funny mixture, there's total patzers but also titled players... and topics like this go on for 20+ pages heh.
I think this needs to be read
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/suggestions/this-will-make-the-ratings-more-accurate
viswanathan wrote:
turtle wrote: i am starting to understand the rating system, but how do you determine points during a game? are certain peices worth different points?
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
This is wrong valuation of pieces.
Correct valuation of pieces are:
Pawn =1 point
Knight = 3.25 Points
Bishop = 3.25 Points
Rook= 5 Points
Queen = 9 Points
There is no correct valuation of pieces. It varies with what kind of player you are and what kind of position we are playing. This is also why chess is difficult and interesting. The value system is mainly for beginners so they can get a start into a game that later becomes more complex. True, chess engines use a value rating like this but a lot of other parameters are involved aswell. For example the other day I was playing in my club's championshiop and sacrificed first a rook for a bishop and later another rook for a knight and a pawn. Then I would have been behind about 3 points (5+5)-(3+3+1). Actually the position was even also when valued by some engines like Fritz 11.
Dec 9, 2009
0
#513
Although there are probably problems with this approach, I believe experienced players who are new to the site should be able to have an initial rating set to something other than 1200.
As for the Glicko system, the concept of taking into account recent activity (or the lack thereof) seems like a good idea. At USCF tournaments, I often find players who are returning after having been away from the game for awhile -- their rating does not reflect their true strength, which distorts the rating results for those people who play them.
TenaciousE wrote:
Although there are probably problems with this approach, I believe experienced players who are new to the site should be able to have an initial rating set to something other than 1200.
I agree. It should be set to something like 85716*. Perhaps then people will accept that ratings aren't comparable.
(* of course, when this change happens, existing players should get 85716-1200=84516 rating points added)
Dec 9, 2009
0
#515
Having read your earlier posts on the subject, I fully understand your response, and you are entirely correct. However, so long as chess.com ratings have some resemblance to ratings from other organizations such as the USCF or FIDE, people will attempt to compare ratings among organizations. Given that this is unavoidable, my thought was that at least some measure of comparability could be maintained by using external ratings as for the initial rating. I know just enough about statistics and the theory of rating systems to realize that this is probably wishful thinking. From a more practical perspective, I think it lessens the playing experience when you are playing a "new" or provisionally-rated player, only to find his playing strength is nowhere near what is indicated by his rating. Intuitively, I feel there is some practical benefit for a USCF/FIDE 2000-rated player (just an example) to get an initial rating that is at least directionally representative of his strength. For a patzer like me, it probably doesn't matter that much.
I'm not sure why there's so much discussion of giving highly-rated players an initial boost. Given five games against opponents consistent with their site-rating (starting with a 1200, then someone who is consistent with their new rating, then etc etc), they'll zero in on their proper rating. Is it really that big of a deal?
Yeah that is how the ratings work. Play a rated game, and your rating would change.
Dec 16, 2009
0
#518
TenaciousE wrote:
Although there are probably problems with this approach, I believe experienced players who are new to the site should be able to have an initial rating set to something other than 1200.
As for the Glicko system, the concept of taking into account recent activity (or the lack thereof) seems like a good idea. At USCF tournaments, I often find players who are returning after having been away from the game for awhile -- their rating does not reflect their true strength, which distorts the rating results for those people who play them.
I believe people should have no rating at all, and only after the first game get a provisional estimate of their playing strength. Correspondence chess is different from otb, so it's hard to predict what rating to offer to the "experienced" players. For example, I have been given 2200 out of the sky - it has nothing to do with my FIDE or anything. 1200 would at least have been funny. 
However, I would have preferred to have a "hasn't played any rated games yet" or just "-" in my profile instead of the figure which may mislead some people into thinking that it's my true playing strength.
Without an initial rating how do you determine how many points to award to the winner of a game involving a new player? You have to estimate their provisional rating based on some initial baseline -- are we just hiding the 1200 that's currently used?
are the chess.com ratings meaningful off the site? if you tell someone your elo rating is, say, 1500, do you have to add your chess.com elo rating is, say, 1500?