FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
What is the approximate relation between chess.com rating and FIDE rating?
Based on brousing profiles of active players, it appears that FIDE ratings most closely correspond to Online Play ratings here, and chess.com ratings are inflated by about 200 points. So to answer your second question, FIDE 1800 ≈ chess.com 2000.
I agree that FIDE tournament ratings should most closely correspond to Online ratings but I suspect the gap is wider than 200 points and increases at higher levels. A player with a 2,400 FIDE rating would score higher than 2,600 at Online on Chess.com. It is hard to be precise but as a guess FIDE 1800 - C.com 2200. Interested to hear what other people think.
The elo rating system is an extremely accurate method of determining not only your strength, but the likelihood of chances of winning when you go against another player.
higher ranked players arent necessarily any better they just make fewer mistakes
Well that's an oxymoron. Chess is a game of eliminating errors.
Everyone knows a higher rating makes you a better person, increases your wealth, makes people nod in agreement when you speak, and whitens your teeth.
The hideous secret is that there IS NO RATING SYSTEM. They use a super-secret method to hand out ratings based on baseball statistics and tax forms.
In computing technology we just call it a random number generator.
Seriously, The rating is mainly useful for assessing your personal growth by just comparing it to your previous rating of a few months ago. Comparing ratings is like measuring your weight. It is a number that will change based on different variables. You weigh more after eating than before and you play better if you are rested than if you are fatigued.
It is best to just use your rating a few time a year. Most of use will have those 100 point drops and 100 point gains. so really your rating is just an estimate of the median of the range of your rating in chess.
LMAAOO love the sarcasm pawnshover
Let's go back to the original question. You were given an approximate rating os 1200 as a benchmark. Everyone has to start somewhere. What you do with that beginning is your business.
Ratings are like badges and certificates, they dont mean anything, what matters is what you do and produce. If you want a true rating then play for real in tournaments and play against "rated" players, for me the online chess ratings have no meaning, using the explore features and anlysis features is not something you can do across a real board, you need to do it in your head, I am not good enough to know if im playing someone who is using Fritz or Rybka or whatever, so i dont bother worrying about, I play, i either win or lose, if im 270 or 2700 it means nothing in the end, it is only each game you play that matters at all, and in the real end we all end up in the same box (in chess and life).
I play Chess because i can and i enjoy it, the end.
How do you calculate your score when you're playing in person? Say I go to my local chess club and sign up to play a rated game, since I've never been there do I start at 1200 like here online?
How do you know how many points to add or subtract after your win/loss?
...go with the flow....
For USCF games, you can use this to estimate your ratings change. (The actual formula they use is too complicated to be able to get the EXACT amount your rating will change.)
You don't start at 1200 or any particular spot - they look at your first few games and see how you did. If you get 2 wins and 3 losses against people with ratings around 1800, then you'll start out with a rating around 1720, for example.
Can chess.com relate their rating to an individual abstract I.Q. Somehow I believe that skilled player must have high abstract reasoning. Every puzzle require intelligence in solving. Every game I believe need abstract intelligence. I hope a study will be done with regard to this subject for all people to know. With it, chess has it's valid purpose in the world and eventually be alive and kicking again.
Can chess.com relate their rating to an individual abstract I.Q.
Not with any degree of accuracy. The "problem" here is that people get better with practice. If you play 500 games of chess, memorize some openings and endgames, use the Tactics Trainer, etc., you will not be inherently more intelligent, but you will probably get better at chess and your rating will go up.
But there are some people who beginners in chess played better than season ones. Though they take more time making a move, yet they are good. Could there be some relationship between high abstract I.Q. people to better beginner player in chess? I think so. Because even if you practice often, during the middle and end game, moves can differ. It requires a little critical thinking to enable to win.