19277 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
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"
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:
And for the loser will be
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).
s1 = (s1*n1+(s2/(s1+s2))*r)/(n1+1);
A simple numerical example s1=0.5 s2=0.26 n1=10 ; n2=25; r=1.25
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.
To follow the basic idea of my system a positive score of 1.25 means the winner, takes 1.25 points per move on average from opponent.Remember that the mate
move "captures" all opponent pieces.
Don`t try to" reinvent the Wheel"; stay with either the Elo (for simplicity) or the Glickman modified Elo system used by the USCF.
more bending will spoil the tube.so appriciate ur understanding!
Merry Christmas everyone!
thanks, same to you and everyone
Thnx ! same to everybody.
anyone else get a little turned on by the bishop?
appriciate ur Romanian formulae!! Wish u good luck % Happy New Year!
Thanks. A good year for every one.
wish the same to u & all in Chess.com !!
8/25/2016 - Around The Way
by papgmi a few minutes ago
by TRextastic a few minutes ago
$200 to spend
by Rsava a few minutes ago
If You Could Go to Dinner with Any Chess Player, Who'd You Pick?
by ChrisWainscott 4 minutes ago
do something about the cheating!!!!
by Diakonia 6 minutes ago
1.e4 gambits for white
by Tom_Brady_SB49_Champ 7 minutes ago
by troy7915 7 minutes ago
Rematch Request Etiquette
by Robert_Moody 8 minutes ago
1 min bulllet tournament
by Ghostqiuyu 10 minutes ago
why do GMs lose
by troy7915 10 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!