hi all...interesting how playing in 5 different platform my ELO point goes from 1600 to 1700 , HERE im 1100 , im not able to beat a 1200 ????? so possible the level player here is more high or low ELO player use software help, or..... i need to stop play chess :)
Chess rating system
Sort:
guys I have doubt about fide rating system I played my first fide rated tournament and I got a win and 2 draws by playing against 7 rated players I also had a walk over point with a rated player I just need to know will they consider the walk over point while calculating my initial rating???
Jul 23, 2013
0
#1484
How does it happens that players without a GM title have a high rating than some of the GMs in chess.com? Can you be awarded a GM title in chess.com?
viswanathan wrote:
turtle wrote: i am starting to understand the rating system, but how do you determine points during a game? are certain peices worth different points?
turtle, the general points system followed is as follows:
pawn - 1pt.
knight/bishop - 3pts.
rook - 5pts.
queen - 10pts.
of course points are not everything... the position of your piece also matters.. for example you might not mind losing a bishop or rook to save a pawn on the 7th row.. and points dont have any bearing on the game result.. it is just a basic framework to help beginners understand the value of different pieces
So would you trade a rook for a knight and a bishop?
R for N+B ? depends entirely on game position. Also more mistakes are made against knight play than against bishop play.
Jul 24, 2013
0
#1487
colina9 wrote:
R for N+B ? depends entirely on game position. Also more mistakes are made against knight play than against bishop play.
The value of a rook is based, to a great degree, on it's ability to cut off portions of the board from the king during endgame play. eg it's much easier to checkmate with a king and rook against a long king than a King, Knight, and Bishop.
colina9 wrote:
R for N+B ? depends entirely on game position. Also more mistakes are made against knight play than against bishop play.
In the majority, especially early, the 2 pieces are much better. It's a mistake even for the two pieces to be traded for rook and pawn.
applejax925 wrote:
I think Each and Every Game should be worth +-5 points. No matter the rating.
We are lucky that you don't design the system then.
simsoh wrote:
How does it happens that players without a GM title have a high rating than some of the GMs in chess.com? Can you be awarded a GM title in chess.com?
This is just like online poker. Online chess changes the ratings landscape, because the number of rated games a player can participate in is staggeringly large compared to an OTB tourney player. People seem to get bent out of shape when someone eclipses the top GM ratings online, but really, it is inevitable with that number of games going on. If any GM played on chess.com every day for hours on end, his resulting rating would be higher than his OTB rating as well ;).
The ratings system will naturally inflate over time in spite of measures designed to stop inflation, because it is not a closed system: every day, people sign up for chess.com accounts, start off with a 1200 rating, and many of them drop down to sub-1000 ratings, then they lose interest and leave. Those rating points slowly inflate all the 1200-ish players, which in turn inflates the 1400-ish players, and so on, all the way up to 2500+. Conversely, the number of 2000+ rated players disappearing from the system are much, much lower.
[edit: he's gone :p]
calm down, mr Fearless_Eagle...
You also have double dippers, who start at 1200, go down to 800, then think to themselves "now that I am better, let me start over", drop one account, sign up for another account at 1200, and lose rating right back down to 800-1000 again...over and over.
travis1010 wrote:
So the reason Kasparov is better than me is because his rating is higher than mine?
No, the reason his rating is higher is that he is better
applejax925 wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
applejax925 wrote:
I think Each and Every Game should be worth +-5 points. No matter the rating.
We are lucky that you don't design the system then.
no, you are lucky because you suck for the rating you have and you would be exposed as a loser from england.
Proposes awful system.
Attacks a much better player, calling him a loser.
Any more?
How about, "You are far from the most interesting chess player in the world"!!
(Even though I agree with you there)
This puzzle is so easy...Does it relate to the rating system... Do I get 5 points or something?
i will go out from you. alexandr