this is the worst chess website possible, not only can i make moves against the computer, i lose in a couple moves against an online player, in which im not even close to a check!!!! what the hell, really?!?
Chess rating system
Sort:
LOOKING AT YOUR GAME ( V manee?) it says you lost on time- a feature of all types of chess surely ?
In general ratings online are significantly inflated compared to over the board ratings. Do you hang pieces? Hang = putting a piece on a square where it can be taken for zero gain,
justice_avocado wrote:
1361 is higher than 1200. this isn't golf.
no 1200 is higher.................. right?
fuzbuz77 wrote:
justice_avocado wrote: 1361 is higher than 1200. this isn't golf.
You mean I've been on the wrong site all this time?...
i get that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!wow!
a queen is 9 points
THIS ISN'T GOLF!!!!!!!!!!!!!
On Aug 8th 2007 justice_avocado wrote:
1361 is higher than 1200. this isn't golf.
On 28th Mar 2010 chessvictor777 wrote:
THIS ISN'T GOLF!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I see this discussion has made tremendous progress in it's nearly 3 year life lol.
I think the sticky was not a bad idea, but the decision not to lock it after a while... probably not so good 
And what about stickies for :
"I think resigning/not resigning is rude"
"what is 'en-pass-en' "
"Who is the all time best? Only choices: Morphy or Fischer" (yuck)
"my opponent cheated in live chess, his clock goes to zero then gets more time"
"are knights better or bishops"
"stalemate shouldn't be a rule, I had 7 queens and only drew"
etc etc
mznor wrote:
In playing my first game on Chess.com, I received a rating of 1200, before I played. Why, and how was that arrived at?
So that you can lose some rating at first. If you were unrated it would be very hard to calculate how much you lose when you lose and how much you win when you win.
Why not to introduce the ratings as per the FIDE rules.
Play with rated/unrated games. Qualify by winning/draw and get the initial estimate of the ratings after minimum 3 undefeated games etc...
I understand from programming point of view set the initial values and a simple logic which is applied after every game.
However from a chess player point of view, it is easy to understand the other-way.
Apr 18, 2010
0
#573
What does a glicko rating of 100 indicate? Could someone compare or contrast with a rating of 50.
PAWNAROUND wrote:
What does a glicko rating of 100 indicate? Could someone compare or contrast with a rating of 50.
A glicko rating of 100 is pretty darn hard to get, it indicates that you've lost your first 300 games without winning or drawing even one (lol, or something like that).
A glicko rating of 50 is impossible, it doesn't go lower than 100. For reference an adult that has just learned the rules and a few basics would be rated around 1000 -- an average tournament player around 1450, masters start around 2200, world champ contenders are high 2700s and 2800.
7 queens and drew...............hmmm, queen and a king would have done the job
I wouldn't mind if I didn't get as many points if my opponent blundered. You can extrapolate from there. However, I guess you can't assume best behavior.
I tend to think that rating systems are a bit to simple for what they also represent, also their are not different ratings for different time limits A 1 minute game is a far different game then a 20 min game even a 2 min game for that matter. these represent different skill checks in every aspect, also higher ratings don't always reflect a higher skilled players. you can inflate your rating through a system of draws, or only playing certain ratings, that and someone can always face a disasterous series of disconnections here on the internet I mean i must lost about 400 points on another web page, like that, going well isn't that nice!
orangehonda wrote:
PAWNAROUND wrote:
What does a glicko rating of 100 indicate? Could someone compare or contrast with a rating of 50.
A glicko rating of 100 is pretty darn hard to get, it indicates that you've lost your first 300 games without winning or drawing even one (lol, or something like that).
A glicko rating of 50 is impossible, it doesn't go lower than 100. For reference an adult that has just learned the rules and a few basics would be rated around 1000 -- an average tournament player around 1450, masters start around 2200, world champ contenders are high 2700s and 2800.
chess.com ratings are no way related to FIDE rating. For example ratings of 2200 in FIDE may get around 2500-2700 in chess.com or even higher.
panandh wrote:
orangehonda wrote:
PAWNAROUND wrote:
What does a glicko rating of 100 indicate? Could someone compare or contrast with a rating of 50.
A glicko rating of 100 is pretty darn hard to get, it indicates that you've lost your first 300 games without winning or drawing even one (lol, or something like that).
A glicko rating of 50 is impossible, it doesn't go lower than 100. For reference an adult that has just learned the rules and a few basics would be rated around 1000 -- an average tournament player around 1450, masters start around 2200, world champ contenders are high 2700s and 2800.
chess.com ratings are no way related to FIDE rating. For example ratings of 2200 in FIDE may get around 2500-2700 in chess.com or even higher.
I completely agree, chess.com ratings do not corresponde with other ratings. I'm 800 USCF (pretty suckish) and 1,300 chess.com. That's a difference of 500.
Also, my live chess ratings are at least 100 higher than my USCF.
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
Queen is not 10 points, but 9
Can we attack Red Hot Pawn next? They had some interesting looking tournament structures.
hiiiiii