Chess rating system
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
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?
HI Mznor,
I am also a chess beginner and i was also worried about the same but i tell you what this thing doesn't matter. if you want to improve your chess skills all you need is a platform where you can learn and play online chess games. I recommend you to visit ichessu.com . This is one of the best online source for improving chess game.
I have draw with my opponent. Why my opponent increased his rating point higher than me
1200 = average but no one can determine your true skill level in chess so the glicko rating system of chess.com determines a more exact value the more games you play and is more sure of your rating. but when you barely create an account it will quickly go up or down in the beginning judging by your win/loss record
andrewstevens wrote:
my advice to any new players, take a blind bit of notice about your rating, it is not important, take more time learning the openings!!! i hope this is helpfull!!!
I was interested in knowing what it means. What are the highest scores attainable.
Nobody take the rating seriously. It's just a guide!
I think rating is everthing to a Chess Player, as money is to a greedy Banker
The rating arrive at 1200 when you first started playing chess. On the average player rating is around 1200 to 1350. You don't have to worry about it.
You will have the rating you want when you played. Below 1400 rating, you are too careless or have just started chess. Rated 1401-1999 are considered knowing how to play SPEED chess. Rated 2000-2500 are considered the PROFESSIONALS who represented their country. Rated 2500 and above are considered human COMPUTER making a minor mistake. No one will know what your rating until you played more than 25 games. People are overrated- They keep winning the weaker players and scare to lose. People are underrated- They keep losing the strong players and willing to learn their mistakes.
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?
@mznor: Were you satisfied with anyone's response to your original question? It seems that you rattled the hornets' nest with your simple inquiry.
@everybody: I have not read through all 753 replies yet, but has the subject of seriously considering a NEW rating system to be used by FIDE been brought up in this thread already? Or should I follow a different thread for that?
panandh wrote:
Speaking of the rating system, everyone interested in revamping the curent ELO rating system should start reading up on the Glicko systems as well as those by Ken Thompson and Jeff Sonas. Kaggle is sponsoring a data-prediction contest wherein statisticians are given 65,000 to predict the outcome of 7,800 other games. The official website is: kaggle
Statistics is the secret sauce behind the great success of the Rybka chess engine.
Statistics is the primary tool used by the young generation of Texas Hold 'em poker players to win the top prizes against the seasoned players who have not adopted complex mathematics to their strategies.
I am very excited to see how statistics can change the way chess ratings accurately define tournament chess players and gauge their future matches.
What do you guys think?
Wow! Surprising what a simple question has stirred up.
Thanks for all the information. I think I get it now.
Huchin wrote:
Wow! Surprising what a simple question has stirred up. Thanks for all the information. I think I get it now.
Good for you. Pop quiz: what is your "corrected" ELO rating now? 
joeyson wrote:
wow ppl
just play
ratings dont even matter
correct
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
I thought the queen was worth 9 points...
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
I thought queens were worth 9 points?
What is elo?
erik wrote:
everyone starts at 1200. then as you play you get a new rating. it is all based on the Glicko ratings system :) check it out - it's a fun read!
I thought it was something to do with us all going 'glicko, glicko' with our mice 
Fezzik wrote:
This isn't a true Glicko system. Glicko starts everyone at 0 and bases the rating entirely on performance rather than some artificial starting point (1200 or whatever).
The advantage for a chess site starting someone at 1200 is that fish can't play 2200s in their first game. But the disadvantage is that better players are stuck playing fish in their first games. Isn't there some way to let the site know what equivalent rating someone is in real life, and then pair them with at least a slightly better opponent than the random 1200? For instance, if I was truly 1000, a 1200 would be too much for me. Or if I was 2000, a 1200 would probably get crushed.
In a perfect world, the pure Glicko system is best. Next best may be self-reporting (ppl who don't know would still get a 1200 rating), and then allow players to play against 1500-1800 opposition for their first games.
But it only takes a few games to gain many points. I think I've played 11 for example. Not too much to suffer through.
If they had self-reporting, or even tests to estimate your rating people could lie and manipulate the tests by either doing poorly on purpose or using a program to cheat.