Chess rating system

  • #81
    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


    actually queens are worth 9pts.

  • #82
    g
  • #83
    dfwg
  • #84
    wef4cdfwegv
  • #85

    can u become a GM or anything from this site

     

  • #86

    Foot in mouth

     

  • #87
    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!

    http://math.bu.edu/people/mg/glicko/glicko.doc/glicko.html 


    Rating is a measure of how accurate and timely you are during any match but the truth remains that nobody is unbeaten! Therefore, none should be underrated or overrated. Its a time ! 

  • #88
    rating r fun
  • #89
    OK I have played several opponents now who have lost major pieces early on then just not played again so it appears they lost on time rather than as a result of their own mistakes.  Does this have any bearing on either mine or their ratings.  Seems a bit of a whimps option to me - if I screw up (and I do) I try to play it out to the bitter end.  It is still possible to get a stalemate isn't it?
  • #90
    ...besides enjoying the game i need some device to tell me my progress..am i loosing too many..or am i winning without concious...or am i lazy by not playing much game...yeah i need the ratings.
  • #91

    Yes thats true

     

  • #92
    The ratings system is probably the best metric that has been developed to accurately measure a player's skill.  That being said, your rating shouldn't matter as much as striving to play a better game.  A lot of players protect their ratings like gold, and at most levels of play, it really shouldn't matter (ie. drawing a game you could have won to protect your rating) what your rating is.  Develop your game, and the rating will take care of itself.  At the end of the day, it's just a number.
  • #93
    porterism wrote: The ratings system is probably the best metric that has been developed to accurately measure a player's skill.  That being said, your rating shouldn't matter as much as striving to play a better game.  A lot of players protect their ratings like gold, and at most levels of play, it really shouldn't matter (ie. drawing a game you could have won to protect your rating) what your rating is.  Develop your game, and the rating will take care of itself.  At the end of the day, it's just a number.

    ...i agree with you

  • #94

    Well I love chess.com, but I have to critizice one thing that has to do with ratings. The rating adjustment adjusts itself to the actual rating when you end the game, I believe it should be adjusted according to the rating players had when the game began.

     

    You might wonder why?, well let's say I have 1200 rating and start a game against a 1500 player, while this game lasts I lose 5 games and decrease my rating to 900. Then I win against the 1500 guy and increase to 1300. That seems somehow unfair to me because the 1500 guy didn't expect to lose 400 rating points against a 1200.  This also works the other way around, that is if the 1200 guy increases to 1600 and then wins his fisrt game against the 1500, then he will only gain a few points, when he should win more for having faced a much higher rank opponent at first.

     The second thing is that many people, because of this, resign early from games they believe might lose, so that their rating decreases and then win another game against higher rated opponents and increase their ratings excessively. 

     

    I hope you understand my points, please get back to tell me what you think.  


  • #95
    On the 'Let's Play' page, it says 'Rating - Show rating adjustment' and then shows plus, minus and draw numbers.    How are these arrived at, please? 
  • #96

    dbalanza2, there was a discussion of this a while back on this thread:

    http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/fast-rating-switch

     

    The upshot is that computing the rating change with the most up to date rating leads to the most accurate ratings. 


  • #97
    thanks a lot, I'll check it out.
  • #98

    I have read many of the articles re ratings but none seem to addres the question of what percentile each raing falls into.

    This should be a table issued by the web-site, showing (for example) that

    Top decile          above 2500

    2nd Decile           2300 -2500

    3rd Decile            2100-2300

    and so on. At the moment, I am approaching 2000 but have no idea whether that is good, average, or what?

     

    What about it, web-site analyst?

  • #99
    dbalanza2 wrote:

    Well I love chess.com, but I have to critizice one thing that has to do with ratings. The rating adjustment adjusts itself to the actual rating when you end the game, I believe it should be adjusted according to the rating players had when the game began.

     

    You might wonder why?, well let's say I have 1200 rating and start a game against a 1500 player, while this game lasts I lose 5 games and decrease my rating to 900. Then I win against the 1500 guy and increase to 1300. That seems somehow unfair to me because the 1500 guy didn't expect to lose 400 rating points against a 1200.  This also works the other way around, that is if the 1200 guy increases to 1600 and then wins his fisrt game against the 1500, then he will only gain a few points, when he should win more for having faced a much higher rank opponent at first.

     The second thing is that many people, because of this, resign early from games they believe might lose, so that their rating decreases and then win another game against higher rated opponents and increase their ratings excessively. 

     

    I hope you understand my points, please get back to tell me what you think.  


    I'm not really sure that what you said is right-no offense. But it does make sense.

  • #100
    stdavid wrote:

    I have read many of the articles re ratings but none seem to addres the question of what percentile each raing falls into.


     A table would be more precise, but the info is essentially there in the rating graph:

    http://www.chess.com/echess/players.html 


or Join

Online Now