Chess rating system

The latest responses are still at the end -- but that's correct, the mods are either too inexperienced or too dumb to have locked a topic like this long ago.  It's just a junkyard of comments now -- there's no use posting questions in it.

Some great pics evolving though!! excuse troll... are those penguins  bye the bye ?

The same thing happend for me also only for live chess. But number of games played and al other things are same as previous

WRONG! queen is 9 points dumbo!

It depends on whom you ask, different systems assign different values.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_piece_relative_value

Many consider the queen to be worth two rooks, hence 10 (2x5=10). Such people include, according to that article, GM Evans, Stauton, and world champion Euwe. Do you consider them to be "dumbos"?

My USFC rating was 1900, @ chesscorner it was 2037, @Chessknot it is 1500, @ chess.com I think im 1600.  All rating systems can't be the same.  I realize I may not try as hard as I do against a GM but to drop 4-500 points?  I don't understand it.

Just think of ratings as odds. Like he is favoured by 200 pts.

it makes it more fair starting at 1200 because if your a GM you wouldnt want to be starting at 1000 or 900

Perhaps some better rated players want to hold on to their point, but to be honest playing people with much lower rating then you can just be dull.  Its like playing someone at squash who struggles to hit the wall and has mastered hitting the cealing, just a waste of time for both players really.. 

halaaa!

any1 wanna play????

The pawn count system is not perfect.

The value for all pices changes all the time, it all depends on the current position.

I am just new here and am playing games the way I used to play them with my friends on a normal board. As time progresses I will look at playing to the clock and also other game styles. So far so good great site and good to be playing again.Thanks, J.S

Luckily that advice will never be followed 100% of the time.  The system really takes care of itself.  The players most in need of strong opposition can't help but find it while both the desire and need to face strong opposition decline as a player improves (i.e. as book study and analysis takes over).

I do agree with Joeyson. Ratings don't matter.Chess is a silent music,as much a mustery as our mind, it makes  me happy,no mattar I lose or win.

I like them because it helps me gauge my improvement and it's easier to communicate between players how proficient someone is in general.

Also of course for pairing purposes, otherwise at a tournament it would be too random... unless it's a smaller 1 section weekend swiss or something.

There is no use for me playing against a strong player (maybe 500 point above mine) or weak player (500 points below). I will not able to learn anything.

The ratings helps to play against equal strength player. sometime because of the style of play I may win or my opponent may win. This type of game provides real opportunity to learn the chess. Interesting positions will be arising out of it. We can analyze and improve our game.

P. Anandh

 Probably a good idea, I'll give it a try.

Nah. I've played lots of different rated opponents, and I find that the best way to get my rating up as high as possible is to play people about 350-400 points below me. That way, I win +2 per game and if I lose, I lose -15 but I very rarely lose so I usually get higher that way.

I think most of these people having been talking about the best way to improve their chess ability, not just their rating.  If the only thing you care about is getting your rating up as high as possible, your best method is to cheat.