Chess rating system

mouse sport

watch you when you are cheating

I read the article that's great coque samsung galaxy tab 4 10.1 etui samsung galaxy tab 4 10.1

i don't like rating systems

it divides people

I've found pretty much exactly the same - my live standard rating is much better than my live blitz. But I think I'm better at longer time controls. The more I think about it the more I think chess is a different game at different time controls. My strength isn't quick instinctive decisions about positions, probably because I don't have much experience and also I'm not 21 either. But I can make good use of more time when I have it in longer time controls.

So I just stay away from blitz now - I don't play my best in it, I lose a lot and it demotivates me. But it's fine: 15:10 or longer is a good game for me and I like it :)

i play only more than 3 minutes if I am using my phone really, otherwise it is a waste of time as I don't take it seriously. But I play 1hr30min + 30min/40 otb though :D

Definately! My rating was similar - it shot up, then I had a losing streak and it came down and stayed down. When I look back at the history I was new on chess.com so my RD value was high so there was a big rating change for each game. And - just by chance - I played a lot of lower rated opponents, driving up my rating without me really deserving it.

It's now stabilised and I think the current value is probably the real one. It's difficult to get your head round though.

What I don't like is that the more you play the lower your RD value goes, so the less your rating changes for each game. So if I play a lot more chess one week, the games at the beginning of the week affect my rating much more than those at the end! The problem is that at the beginning of the week I play less well than at the end - but because the games at the end of the week are weighted less, the rating doesn't come back up enough to compensate for the losses early in the week. Also if I play a lot the RD comes down so much that each win/loss is only 7 points which I don't like.

I don't know if I'll get used to it here after a bit longer, but sometimes I go and play on another site for a week or two while my RD value comes back up again and the site awards more points for gains/losses.

(If you're not aware - RD controls how much your rating changes based on how confident the chess.com site is about your true rating. When you join chess.com your RD is high and your rating changes a lot with each game. The more you play, the lower RD goes. But if you stop playing on the site, it starts to rise again. You can see your current RD value in the stats on each game type - look for 'Glicko RD' on the left hand side.)

yo yo yo

To joeyson - I agree... just play.

But we all know that we here, are pretty serious about Chess...

[I capitalize the word even]

So we have every realm of player here- that fact is mind-blowing in itself, if you think about it, kids. [Chocoalte - I capitalize that word, also.]

-Yes - many of you are children in my view; I have just turned 51. -But I look 40, and feel 35 ---  Anyway... I think Chess is the best game that ever existed, and will probaly maintain that status long after I am gone~

-But I also don't read much -

If I let a game time-out, and I lose... How many 'points' do I lose?

Jim~

This morning I played 3 games, all with players within 100 points of my rating. I won 2 and lost 1 - and my rating is lower than I started.

This does not feel right.

Your rating did not fluctuate much in those three games. You beat a player rated 35 points higher than you, then you lost to one rated 40 higher, then you beat someone 90 points lower. 

Your rating went from 1384 (before you played the game) to 1393 to 1386 to to 1392. Your rating actually went up 8 points even though you probably thought it went down 1 point because you saw your rating after you had won the first game.

http://www.chess.com/home/game_archive?sortby=&show=live&member=Nick_Russell

How do you post new topics?

Opinion, suggestion to all computer/electronics chess if possibly added feature in the future of the elo or USCF chess ratings to all chess players or even to all gm, nm, im, wfm, etc.

all of us will experience victory and defeats,,,no one of us here on this perishsable planet is perfect,..,,.,.,..,,..,,.

Lately I have seen some new players with no finished games who starts with an 800 rating, and a few with a 1000 rating. Is there a new system of ratings, based on experience or something? And in that case, how do chess.com figure out if a player is a beginner and add a 800 starters rating for that player? Vs one who start with 1200, or "unrated"?

Wow, those aren't very good sites. Most use ELO, I think, but chess.com uses glicko, which is pretty neat. If you're up to trudging through a little calculus, you can find the appropriate info here: http://www.glicko.net/glicko.html

Glicko's fine. Chess.com says they use Glicko, but Glicko starts new players as unrated. That's a critical difference. Chess.com argues that it's not such a big difference. Of course, if that were true, they would use the pure Glicko system. But for some reason, the site prefers to start even strong players out at a rating that is lower than average. 

There are other sites that use a true Glicko system. They tend to cater to more avid chess players than this site does.

A large part of the problem is that a 1200 or even a 1600 player won't get to play higher rated opponents for quite a while. The RD isn't the issue, it's the chance to play opponents who are of an appropriate level.

In all seriousness, 1400s look quite strong here. However, I manage to beat 1600s. Mere coincidence?