wow this is a huge amount of posts for a really lame question.
Chess rating system
Sort:
FifthDimension wrote:
wow this is a huge amount of posts for a really lame question.
Yeah, needed to have a concise and informative answer by staff and then a lock. Inexperienced forum administrator stickied it without a lock (apparently) and it's just... lol 
Oct 6, 2010
0
#644
"The process of rating players can be compared to the measurement of the position of a cork bobbing up and down on the surface of agitated water with a yard stick tied to a rope and which is swaying in the wind." - Arpad Elo
[COMMENT DELETED]
Most can understand the maths involved, right?
Gambitking wrote:
orangehonda, do you realise that today is your lucky day?
Why, you might ask? Well, take a look at this!
You are the author of the 777th post on this forum!
Cool, what do I win!?
Thats true, like fast paced games, that way i don't over think things through and cause headaches. It starts at 1200 rating and it evens out after you play games, goes down until you reach your level and vice versa.
I figured I'd get my rating into a year-type. It is the 2000's now ! I got some more work to do :(
A rating what do you mean ? Is it a rating for your chess skill?
o0obruceleeo0o wrote:
So the reason Kasparov is better than me is because his rating is higher than mine?
No, the reason he is better than you is because he has beaten players who you are incapable of beating. There is a saying in karate which says "it's not the belt that makes the man, it's the man that makes the belt", meaning that if I were to just put on a black belt right now, that wouldn't increase my karate skills at all. I have to actually earn it. Well, the same thing applies for this. If you were given a 3000 chess rating, you could brag about it all day, but you would still be hopeless at chess and, if you played rated games, you would lose it very quickly.
wht?
Bakwasssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
Bakwasssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
im shooting for a 1700 rating by the end of the year, wish me luck!
bmead96 wrote:
im shooting for a 1700 rating by the end of the year, wish me luck!
By playing yourself?
i thimk its because when u first start it gives u a head start coz i joined yesterday and i 1200
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.
What does fish refer to?
great stuff to read