Chess rating system


  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1241

    ChazR

    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.  

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1242

    voldermort123

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1243

    proletariate

    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.

    Peace

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1244

    IckyIke

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1245

    Mautry

    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?

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1246

    ChazR

    ...go with the flow....

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1247

    DavidMertz1

    Mautry wrote:

    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?

    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.)

    http://main.uschess.org/content/view/7875/400/

    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.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1248

    armhow

    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.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1249

    DavidMertz1

    armhow wrote:

    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.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1250

    armhow

    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.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1251

    proletariate

    If you are good at Chess then you are good at Chess thats it.

    Chess IQ and generic IQ are different things, even generic IQ has a multitude of different tests all of which differ.

    IQ is about as realistically measurable as Ron Jeremys sex life.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1252

    armhow

    proletariate wrote:

    If you are good at Chess then you are good at Chess thats it.

    Chess IQ and generic IQ are different things, even generic IQ has a multitude of different tests all of which differ.

    IQ is about as realistically measurable as Ron Jeremys sex life.

    I am refering to abstract I.Q. specifically.  Somehow a person who has a higher abstract reasoning has a better chance of being a good chess player. Though I agree with you we have different intelligence, abstract is an ability to look at things and easily knows what the pattern of it.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1253

    proletariate

    armhow wrote:
    proletariate wrote:

    If you are good at Chess then you are good at Chess thats it.

    Chess IQ and generic IQ are different things, even generic IQ has a multitude of different tests all of which differ.

    IQ is about as realistically measurable as Ron Jeremys sex life.

    I am refering to abstract I.Q. specifically.  Somehow a person who has a higher abstract reasoning has a better chance of being a good chess player. Though I agree with you we have different intelligence, abstract is an ability to look at things and easily knows what the pattern of it.

    I agree.

    I have an apparent high IQ (being a member of Mensa and formerly a member of Prometheus but i dont keep up my annual membership) and I also have an eidetic memory (non specific) meaning it only applies to certain subjects which I cannot control.

    Yet my Chess sucks and my mental arithmetic is appalling (better than average I guess but overall pretty poor I think)

     

    So the whole general thing about High IQ and Chess are definately not true and I have read many studies on it too and there doesnt seem to be any direct correlation, there are good chess players with low IQ's depending on the test or at least unremarkable, and there are poor players with bell curve blowing scores.

    What I think is that the people who create these tests (often some type of psychologists) need to be a bit more intelligent themselves ;-)

    I hate psych* anything.

     

    Peace

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1254

    armhow

    proletariate wrote:
    armhow wrote:
    proletariate wrote:

    If you are good at Chess then you are good at Chess thats it.

    Chess IQ and generic IQ are different things, even generic IQ has a multitude of different tests all of which differ.

    IQ is about as realistically measurable as Ron Jeremys sex life.

    I am refering to abstract I.Q. specifically.  Somehow a person who has a higher abstract reasoning has a better chance of being a good chess player. Though I agree with you we have different intelligence, abstract is an ability to look at things and easily knows what the pattern of it.

    I agree.

    I have an apparent high IQ (being a member of Mensa and formerly a member of Prometheus but i dont keep up my annual membership) and I also have an eidetic memory (non specific) meaning it only applies to certain subjects which I cannot control.

    Yet my Chess sucks and my mental arithmetic is appalling (better than average I guess but overall pretty poor I think)

     

    So the whole general thing about High IQ and Chess are definately not true and I have read many studies on it too and there doesnt seem to be any direct correlation, there are good chess players with low IQ's depending on the test or at least unremarkable, and there are poor players with bell curve blowing scores.

    What I think is that the people who create these tests (often some type of psychologists) need to be a bit more intelligent themselves ;-)

    I hate psych* anything.

     

    Peace

    I agree. Different people have different intelligence.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1255

    pundithv

    MickyBJ wrote:

    Why then did I go down from 1200 (to 1361) when I beat someone who has a rating above 1200 (1089)?? Admittedly don't have time to read the article... but hoping someone knows how this works anyway!

    But, you failed to see that in chess, 1361 is higher by 161 points, not lower by 161 points.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1256

    pundithv

    IckyIke wrote:
     

    takinitez007 probably lost on time.  He had a bigger peice and position total.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1257

    koolmobboss

    it's time to change the laws so black can move first sometimes.  that would only be fair. 

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1258

    rahmboy

    Chess ratings are like IQ. in a way. They track your performance based on wins and losses, not on how strong your moves were. IQ measures how you did on the IQ test, not anything else. CHess rating does not reflect how well you inderstand chess. THere are many skills in chess, tactical skills. opening knowledge, knowledge of specific endings (someone may be good at K and P but not know hot to handle N and P andings.) So rating is an abstract composite.

    SIegbert Tarrasch said: "it is not enough to be a good player. One must also play well."

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1259

    minhtam851078

    I like all peopleCool

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1260

    jojosayslol

    whoever goes first will win


Back to Top

Post your reply: