Chess rating system

Fun read?????? my brain shut down after 10 seconds......

 Try to keep a mugful  hot cofee at ur side and u wll see no power failure !!!

lol..not even a continuous intravenous drip of coffee would keep me awake for that...if anything gets too technical my eyes go into instant glaze mode.....

 Then Sir, u think quick & execute instant !Game is fun & no  serious technicality.and no worry for win or loss. And exercise more in chess and Physicals.Thanks ,

??????????? I think i now understand the phrase ‘Two nations separated by a common language.’ I understand the words you used, but when put together I am not sure what they mean.......are we still talking about the attachment explaining the glickorating system....?

I think that it doesn't matter how well one plays a game if one winds up losing the game.  I think the one who wins is the  quick-thinker or with the better strategy.

"The person who makes the 2nd to the last mistake wins." ___NM Robert Haines

hello everybody im a new comer and im epic at this game called chess 

is there any comments about chess

  just look your previous comment: you are an epic in Chess !!!!!!

I am interested in the live v. online ratings.  My rating for online is generally much higher than for live.  I suspect that my live rating is a more accurate measure of my true strength because it is based equal use of time.  I do better at online because I spend more time studying the position than most of my opponnents and gain an advantage that way.  I have noticed that most players have a higher online rating and the average online rating on the site are higher than the average live rating.

I also have the impression that most online and live ratings tend to be higher than over the board ratings.  The Glicko system was created for over the board ratings.  It would be interesting for some math whiz to come up with some algorithym to estimate equivalent over the board ratings based on online and live ratings.

Now, before someone goes off on me about the insignificance of ratings, the value of ratings, in my opinion, is two fold.  First, rathings allow players to find similarly skilled opponenents so that they may have an enjoyable game.  Second, ratings provide a benchmark against which to measure progress for those who wish to progress.

Others perhaps just enjoy beating up on lesser skilled opponnents and will lose a bunch of quick games from time to time to keep their rating down so that they can have fun picking on weaker players.

Admittedly, the system is not perfect, but all in all, I think it works pretty well.

I think these ratings measure different things. Blitz challenges your speed of thought. OTB play at tournament speed tests your ability to calculate and to imagine complicated positions. Turn Based is more about strategy and understanding. There is overlap but they essentially require different skills. If you are at a similar level in each department, the scores should converge, otherwise they will be skewed to what you are good at.

In my case, my rating falls the faster I move.

I also found the same as you in TB. I used to play 1 or 2 games at a time and use the full 3 days and my rating shot up. I then noticed that nearly everyone else was playing multiple games and moving in a few minutes. So I did the same and...it went down. Glad I didn't give up the day job.

 Yup, that is a good point.  Another difference is that Blitz play measures what you know and Turn Based measures what you can figure out.  I normally play standard King's pawn opennings and I know some of the openning strategies and tactics.  When I play some one in a Blitz game and find myself in a position I know and my opponent does not then I win, however, in a position my opponent knows an I do not, I lose.  However, in turn based games, when I find myself in a position I do not know, I can study it very carefully and I may be able to figure out what is going on.

I hadn't thought of that. It's a really good insight.

"Using past results and Harkness ratings, Elo observed that the distribution of individual performances resembles a normal distribution"

http://www.chessbase.com/newsprint.asp?newsid=4326

What exactly is this "performance"?

I have an idea about how to rate players during a RR tournament., and a general extension in mind.

I believe a measure of the player strength relative to a certain game is given by the speed of the material gain. At the begining the material is even, and at the end  there are two posibilities:

1. The game is a draw(any chess rule leading to a draw) .  

No one loses both sides keeps its armies for a feature battle. In this case the game score is given by

(material1 - material2)/(number_of_game_moves). One of the sides will have a positive score , while the other will have the same absolute score but with the sign changed.

2. The game ends in mate. The side which loses the game is considered to lose all  the material in the end, as the soldiers cannot fight without their king.

The score will be for the winner: 

1.material_of_the_winner_at_last_move/number_of_game_moves

And for the loser will be 

 (- material_of_the_winner_at_last_move)/number_of_game_moves.

At a RR tournament is sufficient to add the score for every game for every player just like that.

If a player competes in different tournaments we must take into account the adversary strength, and the player ranking  is computed different.

The player strength is the average  of the cumulated game scores.

Suppose the players strengths are s1 and s2,number of games played so far are n1 and n2, and player 1 has a positive game result: r( a draw does not need to be a zero result).

Then compute

                    s1 =  (s1*n1+(s2/(s1+s2))*r)/(n1+1);

                    n1=n1+1;

                    s2=(s2*n2-(s2/(s1+s2))*r)/(n2+1);

                    n2=n2+1; 

A simple numerical example s1=0.5 s2=0.26  n1=10 ; n2=25; r=1.25

 New stregths:

  s1= (0.5*10 + (0.26/0.76)*1.25)/11 = 0.49

  s2= (0.26*25 - (0.26/0.76)*1.25)/26 =0.23

Also the probability the player 1 wins the player 2 is computed like (s1/s1+s2).

Before the game p=65%; after the game p=68%.

The interpretation of score 1.25:

If the number of moves in current game was 30 , it means the winner had 30*1.25 in material at the last move.

I will apreciate some feedback and how can we test this. 

Andrei from Romania

Andrei, what if you sacrificed material before mate? Your rating gain would not be as great yet a win through material sacrifice could be considered more skillful than a win retaining material.

There is a compensation for that. If the sacrifice is not seen by the opponent the game ends quickly and the ratio material/number_of_moves is still high.

Also keep in mind that in this situation the material of the winner will be a big number because the opponent material does not count after mate(it is considered captured by the mate move):

Suppose after a few moves one sacrifices it's queen and then mate. His material

is a bigger number compared to the situation when no sacrifice is done and the game lasts for 40 moves.

Its somr thing !! let me take little respite. then resume.