Chess rating system

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1161


    uhohspaghettio wrote:
    oldbones wrote:

    so yuor saying a 2000 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 · #1162


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

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1163


    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.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1164


    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 · #1165



    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).

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1166



  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1167


    Someday I expect to hit the double digits. 

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1168


  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1169


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

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1170


  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1171


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

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1172


    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 is ?

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1173


    yes me 2

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1174


    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

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1175


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

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1176


    Ii think the knight should be worth 3.5 relative to the bishop being worth 3.0.
  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1177


    Hunadora wrote:
    But i think we have all have games where we played much weaker players and blew the game by not thinking as well as we should.

    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.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1178


    ChristianSoldier007 wrote:

    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.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1179


    waffllemaster wrote:

    It's more like a 1700 FIDE rating is a 2000 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 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 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).

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1180


    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.

Back to Top

Post your reply: