14225 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!
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
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 :
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.
Below are details about your observations. Except for the first aspect, I think the orginal model is fine.
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.
yes definetly d best !!! u r (wink wink he not the best)
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
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.
I do! I do!
I went up against this one guy I never expected to beat in my wildest dreams, and I won three times in a row. On the other side of the ledger, I completely screwed up and lost to someone who had a queen and a half dozen or so pawns against a king and three, and couldn't work out how to put me out of my misery.
I should have tried harder to draw that last game. Oh well.
actually someone did get zero, i don't remember who
A zero rating would be achievable but you'd most likely need to cheat by using multiple accounts. This would be the reverse of using multiple accounts to boost your rating. I can't see anyone ever bothering to do such a useless thing.
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.
Everything I've read on chess.com says that comparisons between different rating systems/pools are very difficult to make. However I also read that FIDE ratings are on average, 200~300 points LOWER than chess.com turn-based. Same as Chess 960 ratings are on average 300~400 points lower than standard turned-based ratings, (different pools of players + less games played).
A rating can give you sort of weakness . Do not look at the opponent's rating when
you play, find a way to cover it up so it does not matter anymore.
Does the fried liver attack actually work?
by Fiveofswords 2 minutes ago
by Dobrodewed 5 minutes ago
learn to play the Ruy Lopez
by chessplayersrilanka 7 minutes ago
Wasted Too Much Time In Unorthodox Openings. Want To Return To Normal.
by Fiveofswords 12 minutes ago
how do you draw blue arrows in fritz 12
by Supershothot1000 12 minutes ago
by edwardseungwonjeong 18 minutes ago
8/3/2014 - Mate in 2
by Rambo2004 19 minutes ago
2/11/2016 - Casas-Piazzini, Buenos Aires 1952
by jgniu 21 minutes ago
Bullet; biltz, and rapid (standard)
by AcealanhBon 25 minutes ago
How's this white response to Caro Kann?
by dpnorman 29 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!