Chess rating system
Sort:
Ah yeah...like I just want to play... I got a headache looking at that site. Wow.
i think Jay or someone posted a topic on how they work and why you are given a 1200 preliminary.
oh ok makes sense pretty interesting
Apr 8, 2008
0
#144
Interesting idea, Clownfish. The formulas could be used with some sample data to determine the results. But to use that approach in real life, as a "strategy" per se, would require you to know not only the ratings of your potential opponents but also their RD values. Then you would have to run the numbers to determine the best possible sample of opponents against which to battle. Even then, there's no guarantee of better success against the lower-ranked sample group.
And what if the higher-ranked players have very high RD values and the lower-ranked players have very low RD values? Then the results for the two scenarios you describe above could be equal or even reversed!
I offer the following spin on your idea: We have no way of affecting our opponents' RD values. But we can affect our own. By definition, the RD value will gradually increase with time. So if we take extended leaves between groups of rated games, that would affectively cause our RD value to increase before each group of games. Therefore the ratings swing caused by our game results would be more dramatic (which could be a BAD thing). But we would need to know what time constant the USCF (or FIDE or whomever) uses for the RD equation. 2 months? 6 months? 1 year? 2 years? And of course we would have to stay "up on our game" during those sabaticals.
In the end, I don't think there's an easy way to minipulate the formulas or the system. There may be a way, but it's probably not very easy. Or we could try to win every game. :-)
Chess rating ELO is hard to improve.
Ratings...Shmatings...Get to playings, fools!
LOL it is kind of easy too.
High rated is good!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
joeyson wrote:
wow ppl
just play
ratings dont even matter
Ratings are important to people, it justifies their abilities, thought starting with a 1200 rating does not accuratley portray the skill of the individual.
i'm rated 1200 and i don't play golf
come get me
thats how u start.
I think ratings do matter to serious chess players. I have never met one that it didnt matter to. Are you a serious chess player? I consider myself a serious chess player but the only rating that matters to me is my uscf and fide otb classic chess ratings. Online ratings dont matter to me at all and neither do blitz or rapid chess ratings.
I'm pretty new to chess and I'm not familiar with the uscf & fide otb classic chess ratings. How does one get rated under these systems and how are they different from the on line ratings?
This thread is humourous - i was puzzled at the "Why then did I go down from 1200 (to 1361)" - then i read on and realised that the poster thought ratings were like golf handicaps. Broke into a smile - (i was feeling somewhat tense for reasons not related to websites) - and feeling relaxed - it was theraputic! Thanks, MickBJ!
(the above is meant seriously! i am *not* taking a dig at anyone. Perish the thought...)
By the way, internet-chess ratings (say fics or icc) matter in a way - it you play too casually for a long session your rating falls abnormally below your "normal" at the relevant site - so you tend not to get opponents against whom you can play a good game (until your ratings pick up again).
Apr 26, 2008
0
#157
Reb wrote: I think ratings do matter to serious chess players. I have never met one that it didnt matter to. Are you a serious chess player? I consider myself a serious chess player but the only rating that matters to me is my uscf and fide otb classic chess ratings. Online ratings dont matter to me at all and neither do blitz or rapid chess ratings.
I agree with the assertion that ratings do matter to serious players. I do not agree however that OTB ratings have some superior status to correspondence or on-line ratings. Why does he think that people who play correspondence chess or online chess cannot be serious players? Not everyone has the opportunity or time to play otb....I myself have limited time even to play online, but I take each game seriously and give it as much thought as I can within the time available. My rating is not too bad but I would desperately like it to be better.
Apr 27, 2008
0
#158
An interesting aspect of ratings is that you can estimate about how often one player should beat another. If they are 100 points different, for example, the stronger player should win about 64% of the time, 200 points about 76% of the time, 300 points about 85% of the time and 400 points about 91% of the time. Gives you a lot of respect for Kasparov's record rating of 2850. Of course, you shouldn't be thinking about this when you are playing since even against a player rated 400 points higher you still have a chance.
justice_avocado wrote: 1361 is higher than 1200. this isn't golf.
so we're not sposda get our ratings to zero!!!???
so we're not sposda get our ratings to zero!!!???
fischer wrote: AlecKeen wrote:Becca wrote:Rating has its place but its not the most important thing. Sometimes you can lose a game on time and it will seriously affect your rating this has nothing to do with how well you play.
Oh yes it does! How well you play includes how well you manage your time. Time is as much part of Chess as it is in other games. In football you could score the greatest goal in history, but if the referee blows time before it goes in it doesn't count. Similarly in Chess if you don't get your moves in within the time, you lose, and correctly so.
I could be wrong, but I assume she's talking about blitz games. There are lots of people who are great blitz players but terrible in long games, and vice versa.
I try to play differently in blitz games. In long games I try to play (what looks to me through my myopic chess goggles) the best move, whereas in blitz games I try to play moves that make the opponent think