Hi everyone,
I am pretty new here so please forgive me if this has been answered already. I wonder how chess.com ratings (standard/long) translate into real life elo. I know this cannot be answered precisely, but a rough answer wood already be very nice.
Say, I want to train to reach a level of 2000 ELO in real life, which rating would I have to aim for here?
I would really like see an answer. When I quit playing chess around 6 years ago I had a real life ELO of around 2000-2050. Before I may get back to tournament chess, I would like to know when (if :D) I reached that level...
EDIT: I talk about chess.com life chess rating...
I would really like see an answer. When I quit playing chess around 6 years ago I had a real life ELO of around 2000-2050. Before I may get back to tournament chess, I would like to know when (if :D) I reached that level...
EDIT: I talk about chess.com life chess rating...
There is really no way to compare OTB ratings with ratings here due to many factors. One of the biggest being that the pool of players is different. One of the other main differences is the type of play itself. OTB you are probably looking at longer time controls that you can't easily replicate here. Longer time controls on live chess here might come closest to approximating your OTB ELO, but again, due to the differring pools of players, it really isn't even close to accurate.
I see what you mean. But someone with a lot of experience should be able to make a rough estimate. Like 2300 life-long ~ 2000 OTB. (for example)
This would really help me a lot because I don't want to embarrass myself by playing 1500ish when I get back to OTB chess.
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 agree, but I thought queens were worth 9 points, not 10.
I just went through the list of titled players. Most have lower live blitz/standard ratings than real life Fide. Never would have thought that...
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.
<Fezzik> I agree with your sentiments and stated so earlier in this thread. However, others responded with technically accurate comments, which I will paraphrase: "It is silly to try to compare ratings across different chess sites and organizations -- by definition, they will not be comparable because the players comprising the rating pools are different." "Ratings are largely inconsequential in the big picture of chess life." The first comment was well-articulated by its author in multiple posts. With regard to these comments, my response (using somewhat reverse logic) is that if the [initial] rating doesn't matter or mean anything, then what would be the harm if I entered my own initial rating? To be clear, I am not losing sleep over this and will trust that the Glicko system will work its magic. As an anecdote, my friend and I each played our first game here (against each other). He is USCF correspondence-rated 2000 and I'm a USCF OTB-rated 1500. Following my loss to him, his rating here is now 1364 and mine is 1008. I'm sure his next opponent will suffer "shock & awe" and my next opponent will accuse me of sandbagging. P.S. I'm smiling as I write this -- I generally agree that in the big picture of life none of this matters all that much.
hi
this forum has more information about chess and it is quit useful . . ....
[url=http://www.savingsbanksite.com]Savings Account[/url]
1200 is used in lots of websites such as gameknot.com
asdasdas
Thank you for the nice questions..
Its really confusing on the points goes...
Can anyone enlighten me as to the ELO rating of the various levels of Chess Titans?
I play both Titans and Chessmaster with varied success but struggle on level 7
Is the chess.com rating supposed to be close to what your chess rating would be if you actually played in official tournaments?
Thats what I figured, thanks.
I I can't make any sense out of this forum non of the dates follow in a sequential pattern with comments from as long ago as 2007 still posted.
I posed a question some days ago and not only has no one offered me an answer but I can't even find the question i asked among all the jumbled up dates.
ps,good point