@Erik: Thanks for the insight. I say this because I looked at the two ratings. Now, I am most used to the ELO rating, but with how it's explained, I like the Gliko rating better as I feel it's more accurate.
Chess rating system
Sort:
i like eating cookies while playing chess
[COMMENT DELETED]
wretches and thieves of time
Ratings are good, they prevent high level players from having their time wasted by being matched with patzers like me. Meanwhile, patzers like me don't have to be demoralized by being matched with high level players.
time fraudsters have you shame
I've given away easy wins to 1400s by making pointless blunders. I hope my thought process gets better.
consistency is the key to success. though, I'm not consistent.
sorry I know that i am on the wrong thread but I cannot find how to create a new thread.
I ld like to know how how to get the blog rss feed of a specific member, could you tell me how to do that and where to look for the rss link
Thank uou for your help
i don;t understand what the ratings mean in terms of understanding
would this be accurate?
- 1200-1399 = 'D' player - usually a beginner;
- 1400-1599 = 'C' player - average club or tournament player, most people control the center and develop and know scholar's mate
- 1600 - 1799 = 'B' player - consistently above average; and better at seeing plans
- 1800-1999 = 'A' player - strong club player, has lots of opening knowledge;
- 2000-2199 = 'Expert' - extremely strong, consistent player with the possibility of achieving Master rating, has a lot of real talent; can see everything from opening to ending.
- 2200-2399 = 'Master' - strongest amateur rank, hasn't quite got the hang of things yet but maybe one day he/she will wake up.
International professional players have two ranks:
- 2400-2499 = 'International Master' - weakest professional rank; strong, experienced international player, eats Masters for breakfast;
- 2500+ = 'Grandmaster' - eats IMs for breakfast, lunch and dinner, a chess genius who thinks nothing of playing 20 and 30 board simuls against Experts and Masters and is disappointed if he/she doesn't win every game, capable of playing 10-20 blindfold games at the same time, and winning, etc. etc, in short, an all around bricks and mortar, brass bound b*st*rd of a player, but they do lose on occasion, sometimes to players with a much lower rating and computers are better than that these days.
- 2700+ world championship and and can see 20 moves deep
Schackoo wrote:
MuhammadAreez10 wrote:
In all seriousness, 1400s look quite strong here. However, I manage to beat 1600s. Mere coincidence?
I think playing on the internet poorly reflects your actual strength I R L. I have lost to 1200's and I've beaten 1800's - so how strong am I in the long run ? And what if I start learning something about chess ? I might get even stronger.
However, there's a correlation between fast learning abilities and chess improving. The rating over time follows your higher understanding of the game.
I know what you mean and I agree mostly with you.
Nonetheless there is something wrong if a 1350 rated player can crush you move after move , yet when you are home and play vs a computer at 1800 ELO you win. That means that clearly some people here consider it ok to use computer help. I don't say that they do it for the entire game, but who knows, maybe they start using it if they don't know what to do.
Again - I have two chess engines at home (Shredder and Tiger) and I beat the first one up to 1750 and the second one up to 1800 quite regularly. So somebody should explain me why here,players that are way below those ratings, can just take over the game after 10 moves.
Fuck that, seriously.
fb thieves of time
Queen4aKnight wrote:
How come some people have points and others don't
What kind of points?
chess.com thieves of time without shame
thieveschess.com
yo
just came here to say hello, wussup?
travis1010 wrote:
I have rated 1250 and I won a player with only 4 moves but it increases only 6 points what is the exact meaning of Elo does it depends the faster u move?
1200 is supposed to be the average rating in the elo rating system, so most chess playing websites start all players at 1200.
Jun 1, 2015
0
#1960
raghurajsingh wrote:
travis1010 wrote:
1200 is supposed to be the average rating in the elo rating system, so most chess playing websites start all players at 1200.
I have rated 1250 and I won a player with only 4 moves but it increases only 6 points what is the exact meaning of Elo does it depends the faster u move?
It has absolutely nothing to do with the speed of moves.
https://support.chess.com/customer/portal/articles/1444777
In all seriousness, 1400s look quite strong here. However, I manage to beat 1600s. Mere coincidence?
same here.
Manage to beat my engine regularly at 1800 ELO (once I won at 2.000 ) and here on this site I still have to resign to idiots that have 1230 in tactics and 1350 in ratings. It's annoying and the only explanations I get is that I either have to work better on the openings or the entire rating system on this website is fucked. And some cheat too.