They are independent of each other. I have found that online ratings are higher than your USCF rating.
Chess Rating.
Sort:
Oct 21, 2014
0
#3
Thanks AaronGo. Are they at least comparible to each other, even thought they are independent of each other? Our ratings mean a lot to all of us. No matter were we play. I just want our level to reflect the same strength of play. A Grand Master has to be who he or she says they are, and if not what is it all for?
I think you are a GM (or other titled player), then chess.com will add it to your id. As for us common players, it is completely dependent. I have played 1700 OTB players that are over 2200 here. I have never ran across someone that was the opposite. I think it is because too many people have inflated ratings (you are able to research your moves easier which you cannot do in OTB games). I hope that helps.
I noticed that today my standard rating (15 min + 15 sec), was replaced by my Online Chess Rating (3 days per move, usually). Is that a new feature or a problem?
Nov 5, 2014
0
#7
No feature problems, they are attempting to have your ratings reflect your true level of play.
Jan 21, 2015
0
#8
CHESS RATINGS - HOW THEY WORK
Like it or not, we ALL have a chess rating. You may not care at all about your rating, or you may be whining every time it goes down in the slightest. You might be someone who plays a game a year, or someone who plays 1,000 a day. Still, there is a number out there that represents how well you play chess. Well, that's the theory, anyway.
To understand chess ratings you have to understand two things: #1 - that you have a TRUE rating that perfectly represents your strength of play, and #2 - that that TRUE rating will never be known and so we have to use statistics to get as close as possible to the truth. I'm writing this article in response to many people who ask about ratings and need a simple explanation of how they work. (I only know about all this because of a recent super-in-depth statistics course I took and my research in building Chess.com!)
There are two main rating systems, and each one has its merits.
The Elo System (used by the United States Chess Federation, FIDE, and many other online chess sites) is popular for two reason - it has been around for a long time, and it is simple. The idea is this: given two chess players of different strengths, we should be able to calculate the % chance that the better player will win the game. For example, Garry Kasparov has ~100% chance of beating my 4-year-old daughter. But he may only have a ~60% chance of beating another Grandmaster. So when playing that other Grandmaster, if he wins 6 games out of 10, his rating would stay the same. If he won 7 or more, it would go up, and 5 of less, his rating would go down. Basically, the wider the spread of the ratings, the higher percentage of games the higher rated player is expected to win. So to calculate a person's rating after playing a few games you calculate the average ratings of his opponents, and then how many games he was expected to win, and then plug it into a formula that spits out the new rating. Simple enough. Well, it turns out, that is maybe TOO simple.
The Glicko System (used by Chess.com, the Australian Chess Federation, and some other online sites) is a more modern approach that builds on some of the concepts above, but uses a more complicated formula. (This only makes sense now that we have computers that can calculate this stuff in the blink of an eye - when Elo created his system they were doing it on paper!) It is a bit trickier than the Elo system, so pay attention. With the Elo system you have to assume that everyone's rating is just as sure as everyone else's rating. So my rating is as accurate as your rating. But that is just not true. For example, if this is your first game on Chess.com and you start at 1200, how do we really know what your rating is? We don't. But if I have played 1,000 games on this site, you would be much more sure that my current rating is accurate. So the Glicko system gives everyone not only a rating, but an "RD", called a Rating Deviation. Basically what that number means is "I AM 95% SURE YOUR RATING IS BETWEEN X and Y." (Nerd Fact: In technical terms this is called a "confidence interval".) If this if your first game on Chess.com I might say, "I am 95% sure that your rating is somewhere between 400 and 2400". Well that is a REALLY big range! And that is represented by a really big RD, or Rating Deviation. If you have played 1,000 games and your rating is currently 1600 I might say "I am 95% sure your rating is between 1550 and 1650". So you would have a low RD. As you play more games, your RD gets lower. To add one extra wrinkle in there, the more recent your games, the lower your RD. Your RD gets bigger over time (because maybe you have gotten better or worse over time - I'm just less sure of what your actual rating is if I haven't seen you play recently). Now, how does this affect ratings? Well, if you have a big RD, then your rating can move up and down more drastically because your rating is less accurate. But if you have a small RD then your rating will move up and down more slowly because your rating is more accurate. The opposite is true for your opponent! If they have a HIGH RD, then your rating will change LESS when you win or lose because their rating is less accurate. But if they have a LOW RD, then your rating will move MORE because their rating is more accurate.
I wish there was some simple analogy to explain all this, but there isn't. It all comes back to this: you have a theoretically exact chess rating at any given moment, but we don't know what that is and so we have to use math to estimate what it is. There are really smart people out there who work on this stuff for a living, and at the end of it all we get to put their proven methods into our code so that we can all enjoy knowing what little numbers next to our name we deserve.
Thank you for that excellent reply.
Why is it only in the elo system that you say you can predict how many games you will win? Can't we do this with the Glicko systems assuming both players have a small RD?
If I see I am playing someont and that I will win 3 points if I win but lose 9 points if I lose then that suggests I should win 3 out of 4 games right?
I had heard that USCF was supposed to be that if someone was 200 points higher than their opponent then they should win 3 out of 4 games.
Jan 21, 2015
0
#10
eg5309 wrote:
Very nice explaining that. Thank you. :)
CHESS RATINGS - HOW THEY WORK
Like it or not, we ALL have a chess rating. You may not care at all about your rating, or you may be whining every time it goes down in the slightest. You might be someone who plays a game a year, or someone who plays 1,000 a day. Still, there is a number out there that represents how well you play chess. Well, that's the theory, anyway.
To understand chess ratings you have to understand two things: #1 - that you have a TRUE rating that perfectly represents your strength of play, and #2 - that that TRUE rating will never be known and so we have to use statistics to get as close as possible to the truth. I'm writing this article in response to many people who ask about ratings and need a simple explanation of how they work. (I only know about all this because of a recent super-in-depth statistics course I took and my research in building Chess.com!)
There are two main rating systems, and each one has its merits.
The Elo System (used by the United States Chess Federation, FIDE, and many other online chess sites) is popular for two reason - it has been around for a long time, and it is simple. The idea is this: given two chess players of different strengths, we should be able to calculate the % chance that the better player will win the game. For example, Garry Kasparov has ~100% chance of beating my 4-year-old daughter. But he may only have a ~60% chance of beating another Grandmaster. So when playing that other Grandmaster, if he wins 6 games out of 10, his rating would stay the same. If he won 7 or more, it would go up, and 5 of less, his rating would go down. Basically, the wider the spread of the ratings, the higher percentage of games the higher rated player is expected to win. So to calculate a person's rating after playing a few games you calculate the average ratings of his opponents, and then how many games he was expected to win, and then plug it into a formula that spits out the new rating. Simple enough. Well, it turns out, that is maybe TOO simple.
The Glicko System (used by Chess.com, the Australian Chess Federation, and some other online sites) is a more modern approach that builds on some of the concepts above, but uses a more complicated formula. (This only makes sense now that we have computers that can calculate this stuff in the blink of an eye - when Elo created his system they were doing it on paper!) It is a bit trickier than the Elo system, so pay attention. With the Elo system you have to assume that everyone's rating is just as sure as everyone else's rating. So my rating is as accurate as your rating. But that is just not true. For example, if this is your first game on Chess.com and you start at 1200, how do we really know what your rating is? We don't. But if I have played 1,000 games on this site, you would be much more sure that my current rating is accurate. So the Glicko system gives everyone not only a rating, but an "RD", called a Rating Deviation. Basically what that number means is "I AM 95% SURE YOUR RATING IS BETWEEN X and Y." (Nerd Fact: In technical terms this is called a "confidence interval".) If this if your first game on Chess.com I might say, "I am 95% sure that your rating is somewhere between 400 and 2400". Well that is a REALLY big range! And that is represented by a really big RD, or Rating Deviation. If you have played 1,000 games and your rating is currently 1600 I might say "I am 95% sure your rating is between 1550 and 1650". So you would have a low RD. As you play more games, your RD gets lower. To add one extra wrinkle in there, the more recent your games, the lower your RD. Your RD gets bigger over time (because maybe you have gotten better or worse over time - I'm just less sure of what your actual rating is if I haven't seen you play recently). Now, how does this affect ratings? Well, if you have a big RD, then your rating can move up and down more drastically because your rating is less accurate. But if you have a small RD then your rating will move up and down more slowly because your rating is more accurate. The opposite is true for your opponent! If they have a HIGH RD, then your rating will change LESS when you win or lose because their rating is less accurate. But if they have a LOW RD, then your rating will move MORE because their rating is more accurate.
I wish there was some simple analogy to explain all this, but there isn't. It all comes back to this: you have a theoretically exact chess rating at any given moment, but we don't know what that is and so we have to use math to estimate what it is. There are really smart people out there who work on this stuff for a living, and at the end of it all we get to put their proven methods into our code so that we can all enjoy knowing what little numbers next to our name we deserve.
Jan 21, 2015
0
#11
eg5309:It was so nice of u to have explained insuch detail.when i joined i
wanted to reachn 2000plus in any categorey.now i have no such desires.happy to be between 1540 and 1650 in on line chess.reason.i don't
like the typical mechanical machine like calculation of a super GM.I like
games in which u have knight fork,bishop or other pieces displaced checks,mate with a pawn check or bishop check or knight check with
a queen sacrificeor major pieces sacrifice.these put some enjoyment and
life into ur game asalso opponent's.in on line chess now u cannot find any
blitzkrieg attack or pawn on slaught for breaking a castle, rather a slow
tortoise like movements ,boring not to say the least,once in a while u
make a blunder,then opponent takes advantage of etc.I feel chess.com
should keep a seperate cagtegory for players of this type and rating also
different.It is such players who would make chess live and entertaining(then such players should not look at the figures right of their name for rating).
I suggest the following...
1.games should be of 30 mts duration.
2.max.5 mts to make a move.no internet connection disconnection penalty.penalties of minus point or points for moves made taking more
than 3 mts,5mts ,10mts,20mts,and 25 mts.penalty of minus points increasing as the duration goes higher.only single calculation for each
game.no cumulative or carrying forward for another game etc... .Please
discuss and explore the possibilities ,i would be satisfied and happy if
it brings some life into chess games on chess.com
3.30mts time limit should never be extended under any circumstances.
It would be good to play "across the board" so to speak.
It allows us to play in real time opponents we would nto normally be able to. Of coutse it does increasing the scurge of time control pressure!
Would be good to play someone in real time though
Jun 30, 2015
0
#14
I understand that DragonWest. I found that when I play face to face matches my game seams to be a little off.
I have noticed that my rating has increased. I want to make sure that the point system is accurate. I only want a rating that is true to my play. Are our chess ratings that are posted on chess.com accurate and equal to the ratings of the USCF?