# Chess rating system

What would the difference be between a chess.com rating and a fide rating ???

I know its OTb I play in lots of OTB chess tornements but I'm wondering what would a Fide rating be in chess.com.My question being If I had a 2000 chess.com rating what would thatt be in fide what is the point difference,is a fide rating 100 points haead of your chess.com rating or is a 200 behind ect!

so yuor saying a 2000 chess.com rating is equivilant to a 1700 feid rating ?

It's more like a 1700 FIDE rating is a 2000 chess.com turn-based rating.

Live chess is a bit closer I think, but I don't play here much either, and some of the ratings have changed.

uhohspaghettio wrote:
oldbones wrote:

so yuor saying a 2000 chess.com rating is equivilant to a 1700 feid rating ?

No, he has no idea what he's talking about. He doesn't even play here himself.

That's funny, I could've swore I did...but then I don't know a lot of Irish spaghetti makers either.

you guys are mad.... FIDE = 90 30 or 120 0 ... chess.com is 1 0 to 15 0. So i suggest some of you guys learn that chess.com rating is horrible in comparison to FIDE or real life ratings....

To make it simpler, my idea to compare the players in a RR tournament:

If the game is a draw :

the score for player1 is : (material_player1-material_player2)/game_moves.

the score for player2 is : (material_player2- material_player1)/game_moves.

If one of the players wins:

the score for the winner is: material_winner/game_moves

the score for the loser is: -material_winner/game_moves

Note:

material_winner, material_player1 and material_player2 are calculated after the last valid move of the game.

game_moves is the number of moves played ,including the last move of the game.

If a player goes in a RR  tournament and plays n games his final score would be :

score1+score2+..score(n).

Please provide feedback. I think this is more acurrate that a rating system, although is much simpler.

I don't like the idea.  You could win every game in the round robin and end up not winning due to one person having their opponents blunder.

I'd also hate to have to calculate whether, up a queen, it's better to just take the mate in 2 or to first capture more material and promote every single pawn to a queen and THEN checkmate him.  Or, on the other side, whether it's better to LET your opponent try to take everything you have, or just resign.  Or whether to attempt to absurdly lengthen an obviously drawn opposite colored bishops with 2 pawns vs 1 pawn endgame all the way to the 50 move rule.

Chess is about the checkmate.  You can't take your material with you.

@DavidMertz1

Below are details about your observations. Except for the first aspect, I think the orginal  model is fine.

1.  Promotions

You are right about promotions , i did not think of how this will modify the score.  It will be correct to consider that pawns keep their value until end even if they promote to queen or someting else. The formulas are the same.

2. How to win

You should not think if it's better to mate quickly or capture all oponents pieces and then mate. If you play at your best the score will be higher.  "it's better to just take the mate in 2 " as you said, the formula will ALWAYS give a higher score if you mate faster.

I think you did not understand that the loser material does not count, i will try to explain better:

"the score for the loser is: -material_winner/game_moves".The formula is the same as in case of a draw, except that the loser material is 0. Giving a mate to your oponent means the game is over ,and the loser material becomes useless(because it cannot play anymore) or  0.

3. How to lose

If a mate is predictable you should not resign , but avoid the mate as long as you can.

4. Obvious draws.

For the third situation (obvious draws because insuficient material) you can just stop the game, but consider the number of moves to be current_move_number + 50. The score will be accurate(close to zero for both sides) and you don't have to play 50 moves because you already know the material at the end, and the game length.

As a general rule you should continue to play as long as the game length OR the final materials cannot be predicted.

The basic  idea is that the result should reflect the material gaining speed expressed as pawns/move.

Examples:  A score of 1 means you gain on average 1 pawn per move.

On the other side winning by promoting a single pawn to queen, after 50 moves  wuld give a score of just (1+4)/50=0.1 , if the king has 4 unit value.

A  mate in for would have have much higher score , somewhere > 6.

A draw with bishop and king versus king in 50 moves would have a score of

3/50=0.06(for player with the bishop)

and -3/50=-0.06 (for the other player).

Someday I expect to hit the double digits.

[COMMENT DELETED]

yes definetly d best !!! u r (wink wink he not the best)

[COMMENT DELETED]

I'm 99% sure Queen is worth 9, not 10.   Just an FYI.

I checked the rating adjustment for a game against an opponent rated 320 points below me, and was surprised to find that a loss costs me 20 points.  I've lost to players rated even lower and it hasn't cost me as much, usually 17~19 points.

I can only guess that the reason is because of my opponent has a low Glicko RD which is 43, as he is a very active player.  Most opponents have an RD of around 60.  Shows the subtley of the Glicko at work.

I wonder what the lowest RD ever reached on chess.com is ?

yes me 2

Dodger111 wrote:
oldbones wrote:

yes definetly d best !!! u r (wink wink he not the best)

Oh yes I yam....i got like 10 wins an one loss or something, that's like supar good

wow well get yuor ratinjg higher and you weill be the best

Wow, just that simple sentence or two recieved 15+ pages of comments.