Chess rating system


  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1141

    shrike1

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

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

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1142

    Rafchess

    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!!

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1143

    marcel_712

    Hello!

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1144

    Ziggyblitz

    There are only 40 players below 550.  The lowest rated member is above 250.  I'd guess most of these members are inactive.  Even if you could arrange to play these guys and managed to lose every game (they could be quicker on the resign button or just plain time out) you'd still couldn't reach a zero rating.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1145

    Rafchess

    irrawang wrote:

    There are only 40 players below 550.  The lowest rated member is above 250.  I'd guess most of these members are inactive.  Even if you could arrange to play these guys and managed to lose every game (they could be quicker on the resign button or just plain time out) you'd still couldn't reach a zero rating.


    Laughing  U got an wonderful theme point!!

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1146

    Ziggyblitz

    what point was that?

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1147

    snip3z

    :( don't be hatin' on 250 raters!

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1148

    Rafchess

    irrawang wrote:

    what point was that?


     LaughingIrrawang 's point was in his proposition !!

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1149

    vadsamoht

    ChristianSoldier007 wrote:

    what was elo's first name agian?


    Arpad.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1150

    Rafchess

    ChristianSoldier007 wrote:

    actually someone did get zero, i don't remember who


     Cool try to remember ur unrated opponent u fought and ur unconditional surrender resulting a zero achievement !!

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1151

    tommcgrath

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

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1152

    tommcgrath

    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!

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1153

    AndyClifton

    about 1700

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1154

    tommcgrath

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

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1155

    waffllemaster

    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.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1156

    AndyClifton

    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. Wink

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1157

    snip3z

    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....

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1158

    andreic

    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.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1159

    DavidMertz1

    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.  

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1160

    andreic

    @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).


Back to Top

Post your reply: