Chess rating system

  • #1121
    VietnamGotTalent wrote:

    Your account may be restricted if you do not follow our Fair Play Policy. If restricted, you will only be able to play with friends. Please do not intentionally abort/disconnect from games or make your opponents wait unnecessarily. Thank you for keeping Chess.com a fun place to enjoy chess!

    Please tell me why? i'd never lie every one in the fight

     

    Tour Mui Ne


     Winkhey u got the right criteria of a good chess fighter as u will never tell a lie!! hats off !!!

  • #1122
    invisible1 wrote:
    Haha people can often be "overrated" or "underrated", a rating isn't always the most accurate measure of a player's playing strength, in my opinion, because it majorly takes into account the no. of games you play! If Kasparov only played one game a year when he was 2750, for e.g., he'll probably take forever to reach 28++. If you play more, your rating can increase OR decrese faster. So don't take rating seriously! What's most important is to enjoy the game. Take rating as an incentive but not everything =)

    Indeed a chess rating does not really measure "Chess Strength" because such a thing does not even exist.  All it does is measure past performance.  End of story.

    The only thing that matters in Chess is the moves on the board.  Never let a number or a title defeat you or let it intimidate you in anyway.  Again, all that matters is the moves on the board.  

  • #1123

    Cool Best moves is key to win.

  • #1124

    I was going to mention the difference in the ratings you can get on different chess sites, but there are so many variables, including how much time you devote to the games, that comparisons are meaningless.

  • #1125
    irrawang wrote:

    I was going to mention the difference in the ratings you can get on different chess sites, but there are so many variables, including how much time you devote to the games, that comparisons are meaningless.


     Innocent variables may be sort of recipe but devotion and correct move remains there as pivotal!!

  • #1126
    Mikemacka wrote:
    mznor wrote:

    In playing my first game on Chess.com, I received a rating of 1200, before I played. Why, and how was that arrived at?


    dont play WET GLOVES>he is very unprofessional


     Try to avoid wet gloves!! appriciate. Rating 1200 was a standard starting point!! U need to accept a certain point to be ur stand to start.Pl go thru CHESS .COM'S introductory discussion by Erik on the top of this forum page to make ur understanding certain.

  • #1127
    Rafchess wrote:

     Best moves is key to win.


    Computer analysis most often gives my games 30+% of inaccuracies, mistakes and blunders, and yet I am rated in the top 2% (turn-based).  Players rated 2200+ still make their share of mistakes.  When I am stuck for a good move, I try to avoid making a really bad move.  Making the "best moves" constantly is a pipe dream.

  • #1128

    My humble goal within 3 years is to reach 1500 Elo. I don't think I will beat many players. Is it still possible to get a reasonably accurate rating?

  • #1129
    Violets_are_blue wrote:

    My humble goal within 3 years is to reach 1500 Elo. I don't think I will beat many players. Is it still possible to get a reasonably accurate rating?


    I assume you mean over the board chess.  You'd need to play a large number of games (maybe 50) against a variety of opponents to achieve a reasonably accurate rating, IMHO.  According to my turn-based Glicko RD = 61, meaning there is a good degree of confidence that my playing strength is + or - 122 points, (between 1892 and 2136) and I've played about 300 games.

  • #1130
    irrawang wrote:
    Violets_are_blue wrote:

    My humble goal within 3 years is to reach 1500 Elo. I don't think I will beat many players. Is it still possible to get a reasonably accurate rating?


    I assume you mean over the board chess.  You'd need to play a large number of games (maybe 50) against a variety of opponents to achieve a reasonably accurate rating, IMHO.  According to my turn-based Glicko RD = 61, meaning there is a good degree of confidence that my playing strength is + or - 122 points, (between 1892 and 2136) and I've played about 300 games.


    I will be prepared to play dozens and dozens of games. ;) Thanks.

  • #1131
    Violets_are_blue wrote:
    irrawang wrote:
    Violets_are_blue wrote:

    My humble goal within 3 years is to reach 1500 Elo. I don't think I will beat many players. Is it still possible to get a reasonably accurate rating?


    I assume you mean over the board chess.  You'd need to play a large number of games (maybe 50) against a variety of opponents to achieve a reasonably accurate rating, IMHO.  According to my turn-based Glicko RD = 61, meaning there is a good degree of confidence that my playing strength is + or - 122 points, (between 1892 and 2136) and I've played about 300 games.


    I will be prepared to play dozens and dozens of games. ;) Thanks.


     Smilefor that we wish u get thru success!!

  • #1132

    2 get ur ratin up highr wud it b wisr 2 ply higr rated plyrs r lowr rated plyers

  • #1133
    oldbones wrote:

    2 get ur ratin up highr wud it b wisr 2 ply higr rated plyrs r lowr rated plyers

    sorry about hat I was in a rush what I meant to say was 

    Too get your rating up higher would it be wuser to play higher rated oppenenents or lower rated oppnenents?

  • #1134

    haha

  • #1135

    I there a way I can have my rating manually lowered?

  • #1136

    like to zero?

  • #1137
    oldbones wrote:
    oldbones wrote:

    2 get ur ratin up highr wud it b wisr 2 ply higr rated plyrs r lowr rated plyers

    sorry about hat I was in a rush what I meant to say was 

    Too get your rating up higher would it be wuser to play higher rated oppenenents or lower rated oppnenents?


    Seriously, it is better to play lower rated players. However if you are really underrated then maybe the higher rated opponents would get your rating up sooner.

  • #1138
    shrike1 wrote:

    like to zero?


    Begs the question...Why would you want to?  If you feel you are overrated, your rating will come down soon enough.  Sandbagging is the tried and proven method for lowering your rating.  Although I don't know how low it is possible to go, probably about 500 or so.

  • #1139

    Is there a way for the moderators to manually lower my rating?

    I deserv to be around zero.....can it be made so?

  • #1140
    irrawang wrote:
    shrike1 wrote:

    like to zero?


    Begs the question...Why would you want to?  If you feel you are overrated, your rating will come down soon enough.  Sandbagging is the tried and proven method for lowering your rating.  Although I don't know how low it is possible to go, probably about 500 or so.


     Cool U go thru Erik's formula at the begining!!

or Join

Online Now