I don't particular understand the ratings. Just beaten someone with a thirteen hundred rating on blitz, I am on less than one thousand (still getting used to not running out of time....the number of times my clock has ran out with me one or two moves from checkmate is annoying...but i guess it happens to everyone) and I get an rating of +27...very disappointing....
just one time playing good would not serve purpose!! pl gon playing more withmore success with highier Rating players then y'will see your ratings going more up !! Rating standard is a necessary evil without which U can not gauge .
In all cases u will have to start from a certain point!!
Are FIDE ratings accurate - for amateur players not the professionals?
They're accurate for adults who play in Fide-rated tournaments fairly regularly.
Is there a way to manually lower my rating?
No. Your rating is supposed to be an accurate estimate of your playing stregth, adjusting it would defeat the friggin' purpose.
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
Isn't a queen worth 9 pts? Getting two rooks for a queen is usually a slight plus for a player who can effectively use their remaining pieces.
This does differ from author to author. Nine is the most common, however Philidor, Stauton, Euwe and Evans all lean towards 10 (Wikipedia article). The value of any given piece, depends of course-as everything-on the position.
Thats not a fundamental problem !!
Puchiko is right in that the position overrides all material advantages and that the queen's value can vary dependant on the player. In my view, the value of a piece should be the ability for the player to use the piece to gain material, avoid getting checkmated, or to checkmate. Skill with the piece should also be taken into account. A player who dominates the game with rooks might look for ways to trade his queen for two rooks while a tactical player with extensive knowledge of how to use the minor pieces might look for ways to get 3 pieces for the queen.
Oops. Forgot to mention that the defensive value of pieces is important too (both in defending checkmate and material).
I (1828) lost a game to somebody (1612) I lost 19 points, he only gained 11, sounds a bit unfair to both of us
If you check out the Glicko formula you'll realise this is caused by different RDs (rating deviations). To put it in simple terms, a player who plays often has a more accurate rating than someone who plays occassionaly. They therefore have a lower RD and their rating will change less after each game, because it's considered to be fairly accurate.
Because your opponent's rating was considered more accurate (he had a lower RD), it changed less than yours.
Oh yes it does! How well you play includes how well you manage your time. Time is as much part of Chess as it is in other games. In football you could score the greatest goal in history, but if the referee blows time before it goes in it doesn't count. Similarly in Chess if you don't get your moves in within the time, you lose, and correctly so.
I could be wrong, but I assume she's talking about blitz games. There are lots of people who are great blitz players but terrible in long games, and vice versa.
I agree with you fischer, she is talking about blitz (/ live chess).
According to me,what Becca wanted to say is "our rating does not state how good or bad we play but it depends on our playing rate( It is just a yard stick). WE NEED TO LOOK AT IT(rating) IN ORDER TO IMPROVE US and rather it should not discourage us."
I play at a club and some peolpe prefer the queen to 2 rooks. I tend to think they are actually equal. Also, what is better, knight or bishop? I trained with a 2350 master for about a month and he said bishop, but I think it is mainly a personal preference because there are others at the club that prefer knight. Any opinions? ...and don't say it depends on position, that is obvious, I'm speaking generally.
Generally, bishops are better than knights in the endgame and knights are better than bishops in the middle game.This is because the bishop is will usually not have as many productive moves in the middle game than the knight (because of forks and whatnot) and can be blocked off from the game by your pawns or your opponent's pawns. The knight, on the other hand, can jump over a pawn blockade and is a better tactical piece. In the endgame, square control is everything. It's also what the knight lacks when compared to the bishop. It's important to control as many squares as possible and be able to hold key squares in the endgame. A bishop (of the right color) will have an advantage over a knight because it can control more squares, is harder for a king to kick off in order to queen a pawn, and is better at capturing pawns sitting in a diagonal, as is a normal pawn position in the endgame. The bishop's broader scope can stop pawns at a distance.
Also, if you're playing a closed game, knights are better. They can go right past the pawn wall and break through the defenses while a bishop of the wrong color will just sit there with nothing to do. If you're playing an open game, bishops are better.This is because the amount of squares that the bishop can move to are increased in an open game. The bishop can cover longer diagonals and actually help your attack in the middle game as well as the end game. The knight is a slower piece than a bishop (meaning it takes a while for it to go from a1 to h8 when a bishop can do it in one move) . Consequently, knights are more prone to capture in open games. In an open game, every piece except for the knight, king, and pawns, gets stronger. Your opponent's rooks can more easily find an open file and attack or trap your ideally placed knight.