Like any game these days, any kind of reward system is fun to strive for. I like trying to get good ratings, I also appreciate having a positive win/loss ratio, and a good spread i.e 200 more wins to loses, even though it still might only mean I win 51% of the time.
Ratings are also a measurment of improvement, and the higher you go the harder it gets. Ratings are rewarding, and meaningful, but frantically obsessing over them is foolish.
Your rating will go down a LOT if you lose your first game. Same goes if you win. I really don't think starting people off at 1200 is a good idea. They should just make them "unrated" like they do in real tournaments.
I agree that ratings aren't the most important things (well I would wouldn't I) but as a very quick shorthand as to how good or bad you are its a quick answer. It's also very useful to chess.com to match you with a fairly equal player. It wouldn't be fun for anyone with a very different rating to be matched with a GM with a rating of say, 2500 or against anyone with a rating of say, 1130 (eg. me)
for me growing rating indicates I'm making progress learning chess, that's the most important factor
and I tell you guys, pleasure of playing chess is growing with your chess strength as you can notice and use smaller mistakes/weaknesses in your opponent move/position, you see and understand more, it's fantastic feeling
my actual rating is 1810 and I know I will improve it, as I'm still making just terrible mistakes (I lost today a game despite decisive positional advantage of 5 points for example)
Like any game these days, any kind of reward system is fun to strive for. I like trying to get good ratings, I also appreciate having a positive win/loss ratio, and a good spread i.e 200 more wins to loses, even though it still might only mean I win 51% of the time.
Ratings are also a measurment of improvement, and the higher you go the harder it gets. Ratings are rewarding, and meaningful, but frantically obsessing over them is foolish.
Actually, buddy, a positve win/loss ratio means either that you are very strong, and can't find opponents who can beat you, or that you tend to play weaker opponents than yourself.
Your rating is 1327. I guess it must be a real struggle getting games against opponents who can test your skills
You may be right, but I just play with the default settings, of +/- 200 from where my score currently is, maybe i will change that, havent really thought about it.
However, perhaps at my skill level I am strong :) lol. Yes my score was 1327 with ave player 1197, and best win 1443 (not super high). However as we know averages can be misleading. The great majority of the time I play people within a 50 point range, and I feel its a toss up as to if they are 50+ or 50-. Getting a 1030, brings the average way low, that happens a bit more frequently then getting a 1450 to play against.
We should play a game.
I have a question, If you have an 1800 on this site thanks give you a tiltle correct? such as cm right? If this is correct is that transferable to any real chess rankings?
Thanks for answering my post
You may be right, but I just play with the default settings, of +/- 200 from where my score currently is, maybe i will change that, havent really thought about it.
However, perhaps at my skill level I am strong :) lol. Yes my score was 1327 with ave player 1197, and best win 1443 (not super high). However as we know averages can be misleading. The great majority of the time I play people within a 50 point range, and I feel its a toss up as to if they are 50+ or 50-. Getting a 1030, brings the average way low, that happens a bit more frequently then getting a 1450 to play against.
We should play a game.
I've seen it written that to improve properly you should be playing far enough over your head as to expect to only score about 40%. Converted into ratings, this would- in a 400 point range- equate to seeking opponents +280/-120. I think.
You may be right, but I just play with the default settings, of +/- 200 from where my score currently is, maybe i will change that, havent really thought about it.
However, perhaps at my skill level I am strong :) lol. Yes my score was 1327 with ave player 1197, and best win 1443 (not super high). However as we know averages can be misleading. The great majority of the time I play people within a 50 point range, and I feel its a toss up as to if they are 50+ or 50-. Getting a 1030, brings the average way low, that happens a bit more frequently then getting a 1450 to play against.
We should play a game.
I've seen it written that to improve properly you should be playing far enough over your head as to expect to only score about 40%. Converted into ratings, this would- in a 400 point range- equate to seeking opponents +280/-120. I think.
Maybe it's good method when you try to determine your ranking, but to learn to play chess is better to set computer strenth just a little above your best rating. One and half hour ago for example, I had a rating 1822. I played a rating game with Deep Fritz 13 set at 1822 too, and I won the game. My rating jumped up 1 point. So I incresed Fritz ELO to 1837 (15 points, smallest change possible) and I played another game. I won second time and my rating incresed to 1824.
I will play rating games until my rating exeeds 1837, then I'll set Fritz ELO to 1852. And so on. I believe there is no better way to become stronger player.
how u doin mchess?
I'm not the strongest chess player but i'm trying to get better. The score confuses me simply because sometimes it will move without me even playing a game. I got bumped from a 1006 (I know don't mock) to a 800 the next time i signed in. Other than that, I'm trying to get better by only playing higher ranked chess players. (-0, +500). I think it's helping.
Your rating should stabalize when you play more games. Also, note that you have more than one rating. There are multiple live ratings, online ratings and 960 ratings. When you have not played many games, your rating will jump around a lot.
My rating just completely reset itself. I'm not sure why but i'm back to 1200. I didn't get there by a win or anything it just kind of reset randomly.
I have been a basic member of Chess.com for 3 years. But recently, when I get a computer anaysis of a played game, I cannot access it in full because the advertisements interfere and override it. How can I overcome this problem?
John Swift
exept the classical P1 N3 B3 R5 Q10(9) system some machines culculate points in possision but i have no idia whick is likely culculated.
Ok i understand that if you do a move to lose a N,B, R or Q with out counter game in few moves by force culculatin points that now.
But in possision how? Active piece? past pawn? bouble pawn? great squear? maybe good attack possision? better development? all this in a mixer or is stantar culculation?
Sometimes in extraordinary possisionafter after the sac tells more points!
Can someone explain this system?
I have been a basic member of Chess.com for 3 years. But recently, when I get a computer anaysis of a played game, I cannot access it in full because the advertisements interfere and override it. How can I overcome this problem?
John Swift
Use Firefox; download the free Adblock Plus extension. No more ads, here or pretty much anywhere else.
I bet if you paid him enough money, he would agree to play you.