Chess rating system

confirmed ;/

I'm your huckleberry.

a

Truly inspiring words there physicsandmaths, truly inspiring!

yes.i know!

@ Batyshev,

If you play other people around 1900 then you will probably lose most of those games (assuming you are really a 1700).

Alternatively if you play people around the level you feel you should be at you will win some games and lose some games and gradually your rating will correct itself. :)

From my experience I consider their average opponent rating to be more intimidating as opposed towards their actual rating. I'm one of them. I got back into chess about two years ago with zero experience and over the duration of 1500 odd games I've worked my way up to the 1300s but my average opponent rating is 1030 something. I'll be extra careful if they have a high average opponent rating, that's the deciding factor for me. 

I'm also highly suspicisous players create additional accounts to start a fresh as some kind of ego boost to look less pathetic because they've become more experienced but don't want the losses to show for it. This is extremely frustating. If you lose against this person when they're on their new account and they've played about twenty games with a rating slightly lower than yours in standard live chess, I've found the rating system will absolutely slam you for this loss and take a hefty ten or even up to 12 points off you! How does this work out seriously? 

Quite frankly I don't think the rating system is being done correctly on chess.com. If you are rated around 1600 and you win a game your rating should increase by 16 pts plus or minus 1 point for every 25 point rating difference of your opponent. The way the system is run now you only get 8 points plus or minus 1 point for every 25 point difference. That system is only supposed to be used for players whose ratings are above 2700 not for everybody else. Maybe someone at chess.com could read this and change things accordingly. Thank you.

oh!o.k.

I suddenly don't understand anything.

yeah.

yes I agree with #fischer. I have a "not-bad-kid" standard rating but the same of blitz is terrible..

I don't like Blitz, I never have. 

Hello. I ask you to tell me how to obtain a valid f*ck^ng elo. I have read that FIDE expends valid titles, but i don´t know how to contact with FIDE in my town (a spanish small town). 

http://www.chessmaniac.com/ELORating/ELO_Chess_Rating.shtml

This idiot test has rated me to 1700

Chess.com has rated me to 1235, and i noticed that players are harder and harder in same elo (maybe a personal impression), furthermore, the rating system is poorer in order you play games. I am in my 45th game (30 min). 

¿Do you think i could rate the enough 1400 to be federate in FIDE or i will do the idiot?

(Sorry for the vocabulary xD)

#1909 Edseedhouse thanks a lot, i don´t know how works the ELO alghorithm. Your comment has cleared me some things. 

¿Why i defeat "easier" 1300 players than 1250 players? Maybe this are the response. 

First off, for anyone playing live standard, the ratings on there are way lower than most people's ratings offline with some exceptions, especially for game 30+.

It also just means that you have problems with a certain time control

I'm personally quite the opposite as some of you. I'm good at blitz but bad at slower forms of chess. (which is why my offline elo is 1911 for standard, 1779 for quick, and 2061 for blitz.)

Also, I wouldn't exactly say that an Elo, especially on chess.com says much about a player, unless they are consistantly at that level.

I've personally faced 1800s-200s who I have crushed offline and 1200s who won vs. me. It depends on opening preference, and whether they are having a good day (or a good week/month if it is correspondance like on chess.com)

It's also harder to tell if someone is younger. In terms of me, my rating stayed around 1000-1200 and then it suddenly jumped for some reason. It is a lot more volatile at that young age. I faced people in events who the same thing happened. Another 1900 a few tournaments ago (who was 10/11 or something similar) happened to take a win vs Kudrin and a draw vs. a 2300 and went up over 100 points. Things just happen.

I mean, if ratings were absolute, the top players would win every game vs. someone 100 points below but that doesn't always happen. (In short, don't misunderestimate opponents.)

CabassoG, i know, i have a vastly abstract intelligence... i am a concrete moron, it´s the cause to have a 700 speed ELO. Festinger tricks.... 

I have just read about ELO and i think i have understand a bit... 

ELO is estimated around the probabilities of winning your oponent, in other words, if Chess.com couple you with strongest oponents, you not improve your ELO... ¿I fail? It depends on the couple structure of the program of chess.com... ¿Maybe? Your ELOs are in speed chess and in e-chess. With 30 minutes games, i am damned to not-knowing my chess.com elo. 

It is more a lot of people don't play live standard, so the ratings are very mixed. Also, a lot of people who play standard play one opening or two at most (I mostly use the Reti) so if you get them out of their normal stuff, they tend to lose. Not sure how to put it othewise.

Also, yes, it is the probability of winning vs. your opponent. If you win vs. someone with a higher ELO, you go up, since it was not expected.

Though, let's say you play someone who hasn't played livechess much. Their rating might be 1300 but they might be 1800 offline or 1900.