If you beat someone one time with a higher rating, and you are losing in points, will your rating get higher?
Same as in the other thread -- your rating will only change if you play a RATED GAME. When starting a game, the players choose whether to make it a rated game or an unrated game.
ok...
Yes, rating fluctuates all the time. In my case, I want to reach a point where I am above “c” players. The problem is that even though I have beaten 1600’s + and 1700’s +, I still lose to lower rating players because of blunders.
It is a hard thing which we must not be too concerned about. Give yourself time and learn how to play a positional game. It is my understanding that if we do that, we will not be surprised with dumb blunders (like the ones I usually make).
That is what I do sometimes... :)
I did take a look but that was a "live game." I was only referring to online tournament games. Frankly, I don't play those games. It does nothing for me.
Yeah, Merry Christmas and thanks for your awesome response. Our friend just wanted to know how the system works. No one is even thinking what the real value of points are.
السلام عليكم
Ratings are like blood presure; the number is given AT THAT TIME.
спасибо за совет я принимаю к сведению и исполнению . с уважением Александр
This seems to be a somewhat lengthy thread, I have not read it all. Forgive me if this issue has been adressed already but I have a proposal for solving the rating inflation/deflation problem.
I propose a rating system in which the average rating of all players within the pool is always equal to the initial rating of the provisional player ( ie. the rating attributed to the player who has not played a single game yet ). The phenomenon of rating inflation/deflation would be ruled out in such a system by definition.
The formula for the system would be very simple.
Is the system outlined above legitimate and fair?
First of all it is legitimate because rating systems are constructed in such a way that the difference between the strength of players is characterized by the absolute difference between their ratings. Roughly speaking this means that an 1400 has the same chance of beating an 1200 as an 1800 would have to beat an 1600. This means that deducting the same amount of rating points from every player rating does not alter their strength relative to each other within the pool ( the rating system is invariant to deducting a constant from every rating ).
But is this system fair?
I argue that it is fair because the phenomenon of rating inflation/deflation is unfair. If for example in correspondence chess a novice player launches a large number of games on a 'why not?' basis and then simply abandons them and loses them on time and later closes his/her account this contributes to an unfair inflation of ratings within the pool. The players in the pool do not deserve their high rating because they did not achieve them by winning actual games. Also when a very high rated player is removed from the pool all the other players rating would rise according to the formula. Is this fair? In a weird sense: yes. Since by a high rated player removed from the pool there is less competition within the pool so the remaining players rightly feel that relative to the pool they got stronger. I've seen threads in this forum that demanded that the rating points of cheaters should be somehow compensated to the other players. Well: this system would do just that. If a very high rated player is banned and thus removed from the pool the rating of other players would rise according to the formula.
Last but not least here is a very well known example to the unfair nature of rating inflation.
Consider this toplist of all time high ELO ratings provided by 2700chess.com:
What is striking in this table is that almost all the record high ratings on this list are very recent. The only very old rating on this list is that of Fischer. The debate on the merits of Robert James Fischer is overheated and endless. But even opponents of him would agree that for him to be on an all time high list behind such players as Radjabov or Grischuk is grossly unfair.
You must be a genius with all your complicated formulas that you came up with, however and for the most part few understand the complications of how rating really works.
My solution is simply play and don’t worry about the numbers. These are just that: numbers.
I started as unrated and quickly moved up to 1650+. In the interim I quit several tournaments and lost over 400 points. My rating went from 1665 to 1190 (more or less). After a month and a half, I’m up over 1500. The fact is that I never ceased to be who I am and most probably will reach the 1600’s sometime in the near future, although it is never a guarantee.
In the mean time I met other players who became my friends and can discuss other things besides chess (like what’s life all about? Why are we here? etc.)
On the other hand, I would suggest that you try to get a job with chess.com. You will probably change many things that need to be corrected…
We will all thank you from the bottom of our hearts. 
If anybody wants to address my proposal on its merits here is the thread:
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/possibility-of-a-normalized-rating-system
The one-day member has spoken!
[The troll who provoked this comment has been removed from the site. The comment is not relevant to the currently above poster.]
I just hate the attitude of foulmouthed, self-serving people who think the world centers around them...
He should go away and never come back. No one asked him to join chess.com.
When I start worrying about my rating I usually play real bad. So I don't worry about it anymore, and just play.
It makes the game so much better when you don't worry about it...
I hate people who are sooooo self centered.
iOS app. to calculate chess ratings - using Glicko 1 system. check out:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/chess-rating./id787672020?ls=1&mt=8
Chess Rating app. for the chess players who want to calculate their score against single player or multiple players and keep record of it. The Chess Rating app. uses the Glicko rating system, which is developed by Professor Mark E. Glickman
Main Features:
•Easy and intuitive interface.
•Option to type in your and opponent's Name, Rating, RD and Score OR browse it in one click (the app. downloads the current data released by Australian Chess Federation (ACF) and presents it to you - this option is good for players who use ACF ratings).
•The app. updates the ratings soon after ACF releases it (with your consent) - But if you don't play in Australia, you don't require ACF rating, you can use your information (feed info. in the app.) to calculate the rating.
•Create calculations against single or multiple (upto 12) players - as of now.
•The calculations can be stored locally in a database as profiles to access later.
•Calculations can be edited and deleted as and when you need to.
•App. uses the saved profiles to show your progress in an interactive graph. When you tap on red dots on graph, it shows you the players’ information.
Well, to be exact, I won on time. If you want to see it, go into my account,
click the most recent game I played, and there it is :)