Yeah that is how the ratings work. Play a rated game, and your rating would change.
Chess rating system
Sort:
Dec 16, 2009
0
#523
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?
Dec 21, 2009
0
#525
Well my rating is currently 1573 on this site after I have played 20 rated games (Won 12, Drawn 1, Lost 7.) 3 of those defeats I'm not even worried about. What score is my variable?
What's the ELO of my chess engine? :)
http://veclock.deviantart.com/art/Chess-AI-Game-2-137824600
Take a guess, I have no idea but I'm curious!
Danik1 wrote:
I just found some people who might be cheating on this site they are
A rating 2943 1 loss 16 draw 143 win
B rating 2936 32 win 1 loss 9 draw
C rating 2933 82 wins o loss 1 draw
D rating 2930 89 win 8 loss 13 draw
So you see that someone is good and then u just make a statement that they are cheating? Proof or go away.!!
What's the difference between blitz rating and elo rating?
Is this sites rating system any different from the system which says Kasparov = 2851?
Blitz is a certain category of chess games, and a blitz rating is ratings for just those games. Elo is a method for calculating ratings. So blitz games could be calculated with the Elo method, and the rating would be both a blitz rating and an Elo rating.
Kasparov's games are rated by FIDE, which uses the Elo system. This site uses the Glicko system. Furthermore, they are different pools of players. Ratings are only relevant within the pool of players being rated.
For more information check out this blog post
2 months ago a scientist was working in a lab. Him and his colegues where creating a biological weapon, a being of some kind. It grew from a gel in a jar to a 7ft creature. It killed two of them and was killed by the third. It’s heart rebooted and it fled. Now youtube has become hooked up to it’s brain. It’s coming for anyone who reads this. If you want to save yourself you must copy this to three OTHER videos. good luck!
ichabod801: alright, just checking so they are the same scale. :)
veclock wrote:
ichabod801: alright, just checking so they are the same scale. :)
I wouldn't say they are the same scale. That seems to imply an objective standard of measurement, which doesn't exist here, at least for the ratings. What is the same is the scale of the differences: a 400 point rating difference between chess.com players is going to mean the same as a 400 point rating difference between FIDE players, in terms of the expected results of the game.
I am new here, played 2 games, lol, won them, have a high variable cause I have no stats really, but the thing is I probably won't play any game less than 10 minutes or so cause I have a slow brain. It might be a good chess brain or it might be aweful, but I like to have fun visualizing well if I do that, that will happen, but if I do this..... Speed chess is sort of like checkers. I don't understand why anyone would play chess so fast they couldn't have any fun thinking, lol. Well after 50 games or so on here I will believe my rating a bit more.
ichabod801 wrote:
veclock wrote:
ichabod801: alright, just checking so they are the same scale. :)
I wouldn't say they are the same scale. That seems to imply an objective standard of measurement, which doesn't exist here, at least for the ratings. What is the same is the scale of the differences: a 400 point rating difference between chess.com players is going to mean the same as a 400 point rating difference between FIDE players, in terms of the expected results of the game.
Yeah, I think you are right. But what does 400 based rating mean ? I heared players X1 and X2 with rating Y1 and Y1+400 has prorability of winning 1:9. Is it right? (of course if rating is long term given and spread constant is low etc......).
Any way there are math issues with rating. Sometimes it inflates like US dollar right now. Sometimes deflates. So in FIDE they adjust it like economists according to global inflation and deflation in FIDE. On wikipedia is good article.
Well, with a 400 point difference, the expected score for the higher rated player is about .91 (10/11). I say about because the rating deviations figure into the equation too. If the players are low rated, that probably translates to a 91% chance of winning. But you have to consider the possibility of a draw, which is more likely the higher rated the players are. Then it makes more sense to say that if they played 100 games, you would expect the higher rated player to score 91 points.
Do you have to be a paid member of this site to have a rating. I have played one game and won it, but my rating stayed at 1200 ??
No, you don't have to be a paid member. But not all games are rated. If you check the details section on the game you played, you'll see that it was an unrated game. Your other two games look to be rated, so you should see a rating change when they finish.
What determines if a game is rated or not..Is that chosen by the players at the beginning of the match?
Usually open game challenges are rated. Yes the challenger determines if they want a rated or unrated game.
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?