it is allowed in daily. For starter there is even analysis board button.
None of live games it is allowed
Ok. I've never used it. I also don't use computer assistance either. I want my rating to be accurate .... not over-inflated. I already have my ego for that. lol
Not sure though why they needed my Chess.com Blitz rating?! 
Fair enough on the blitz response, Jeffgreen. Thanks for response.
Fair enough on the blitz response, Jeffgreen. Thanks for response.
You're welcome. 
I moved my king to the opponent's king as if to capture in each and every problem.
The result when I made the moves in less than a few seconds:
Based on your move choices, our estimate of your Elo rating is 1035, with a 95% confidence interval of [899...1170].
The result when I did the same while waiting for 10 seconds each problem before submitting the move.
Based on your move choices, our estimate of your Elo rating is 1216, with a 95% confidence interval of [1020...1411].
Complete garbage.
It only measures the ego of chess players, nothing else.
I'll make another try waiting about a minute or so each problem before making the move.
It's not timed, so none of your tests are relevant.
And I was right.
This time I waited at least 30 seconds before I submitted my moves (which were all the same: moving my king to the same square the opponent's king was.
I answered the same exact answers at the end as the first two times as well.
Only difference was how long I waited before making the illegal move, the same one, each problem.
Can we move on from this garbage "test"?
Based on your move choices, our estimate of your Elo rating is 1546, with a 95% confidence interval of [1393...1698].
,
It's not timed, so none of your tests are relevant.
It is timed. Do my version, make the same illegal move, and you'll get different results based on how much you wait before you submit the move.
It's not timed, so none of your tests are relevant.
It is timed. Do my version, make the same illegal move, and you'll get different results based on how much you wait before you submit the move.
If it was timed, then your score should be lower when you take longer to move. Also, I don't have time to do this. I having a very hard time believing your results though. Almost everyone else who has taken it, got pretty accurate results. Try actually making your best moves and see what score you get. Also, when they ask you for your blitz ratings, leave that blank. That could be skewing your results. Maybe they use that number as a base score and add or subtract from it, based on your answers.
It's not timed, so none of your tests are relevant.
It is timed. Do my version, make the same illegal move, and you'll get different results based on how much you wait before you submit the move.
If it was timed, then your score should be lower when you take longer to move. Also, I don't have time to do this. I having a very hard time believing your results though. Almost everyone else who has taken it, got pretty accurate results. Try actually making your best moves and see what score you get.
I already established that the test allows illegal moves of any kind, and therefore it is useless, so I will not 'try my best'.
If you'll have the time, feel free to replicate my findings.
It's also funny I reached 200 points higher than my highest here on Chess.com.
So much for accuracy. I try my best here, I'm 1300-ish.
I make only illegal moves in Elometer, I get 1546.
@GrnFrtzl: I don't think that one should try to calculate for every possible way of stupidity. There are too many of them and it is really irrelevant. It is a service offered which you can try making use of it to your own joy or curiosity. If you like it: fine. If you don't like it: fine too.
But to test it on answering schemes it was not expecting? Unrealistic expectations of the service offered.
If you want to spent your time useful testing this service and help the people who did the effort giving you this nice opportunity, then might you start taking their problems and questions seriously. Suppose you would answer the problems seriously. What is your score based on different answers on the questions after the problems? That is a more realistic test scenario and might help/inspire the programming team to improve the service.
@GrnFrtzl: I don't think that one should try to calculate for every possible way of stupidity. There are too many of them and it is really irrelevant. It is a service offered which you can try making use of it to your own joy or curiosity. If you like it: fine. If you don't like it: fine too.
But to test it on answering schemes it was not expecting? Unrealistic expectations of the service offered.
If you want to spent your time useful testing this service and help the people who did the effort giving you this nice opportunity, then might you start taking their problems and questions seriously. Suppose you would answer the problems seriously. What is your score based on different answers on the questions after the problems? That is a more realistic test scenario and might help/inspire the programming team to improve the service.
Wouldn't me finding the errors also improve the service?
Take it like I was a bugtester.
The service has basic flaws since it allows illegal moves.
It shouldn't have been released for public use with such an oversight.
Or similarly, if it was intentional to allow only illegal moves while still giving a result, then the test is useless, because it doesn't measure anything at all.
Or maybe it's really just an experiment of ego and nothing else.
Wouldn't me finding the errors also improve the service?
Take it like I was a bugtester.
The service has basic flaws since it allows illegal moves.
It shouldn't have been released for public use with such an oversight.
Or similarly, if it was intentional to allow only illegal moves while still giving a result, then the test is useless, because it doesn't measure anything at all.
Or maybe it's really just an experiment of ego and nothing else.
Finding errors would only improve the service if you report it to their webmaster or programmers. Just posting your findings on here does nothing to help their service. ELO-Meter has no connection with chess.com, as far as I know.
I've already e-mailed them about it.
I've scored around 1560. I play above that on chess.com by taking more time on moves than I took on that tedious test, and also using the analysis board to work out lines (which you can't do on that test).
You're not supposed to use an analysis board during chess.com games. I'm pretty sure that's cheating (not sure about daily games). Anyway, it's better to force yourself to look ahead several moves, without using an analysis board. Then you'll be able to play that well in a real, OTB game.
Where on EARTH do you get this idea?!
For the curious, this is when I actually took minutes in each problem, and I took it seriously, without any illegal moves.
It really is an ego test, nothing more.
The highest 'Elo' I've ever had was around 1700 on lichess.
Based on your move choices, our estimate of your Elo rating is 1934, with a 95% confidence interval of [1809...2059].
With all due respect, your rating is not over 2000. My conjecture was that to get over 2000, you have to know opening trees almost like a computer. That said, i refuse to believe you got your rating that high purely on instinctual play. Bobby Fischer read 4000 books on chess and advocated those wanting to learn to do the same then reread them. I admittedly have virtually no knowledge of openings or defenses, but my mid game play is fairly strong, by comparison. You are absolutely correct in saying mid game is more important, plus it is far more fun, unless you trick someone with an opening trap. My meaning in my post was that my rating, as well as many others, are skewed downward due to not being able to get past that opening phase. I play a computer and I can't get more than 10 moves in before finding myself down a piece. My opening instincts should improve here, since I am playing the daily. For 20 years online I have played nothing but 1 minute, to keep away from the cheaters. Here I can look at the Tactical Trainer of a person to see if are real or not. That's the beauty of this site compared to my other (brand X). There is no computer program capable of cheating the TT. I suppose one could be developed, but that would take far more work than it's worth and be easily detected, causing the perpetrator to be banned.
True. I'm "only" an 1800-1900 daily player and my TT rating is only in the 1400's and my blitz rating sucks, so I am probably not the best example to base this on. I'll tell you why there is such a divergence in my ratings though. I am a very slow, deep-thinking player. My strengths are defense, positional themes, pawn structures, middle game planning and endgames. My weaknesses are my openings and tactics. I'm not like most players, who are all about speed and tactics. I prefer to take my time and find the best moves in my daily games, rather than play lots of blitz or bullet chess. Not only does doing so make me a better overall player, but it leads to more victories. I don't like to lose. lol Anyway, I scored an 1820 on the Elometer, because I took my time and found the best moves (most of the time). Tactics Trainer, on the other hand, is timed. The timer makes me rush my moves and I usually only find the 2nd or 3rd best move (which they don't give you any credit for) or it takes me too long to find the #1 move (and I lose points due to taking too much time). That doesn't mean that my tactics suck or that I'm cheating in my daily games. It just means that I am a slow, deep thinker, who only blunders when he's rushed. That happens when you get to be 53 years old.
Heh, I'm 61 but I have played 1 minute to avoid cheaters, for 20 years online. The site I was at before didn't have a "lie detector" like the TT to let you know if the person was using a computer to help on the daily. I based my assertion on the fact that computers are impossible to stay even with past 10 moves. However, in OTB play I have beaten 2000 plus players. I am too old to go back and try to memorize all the trees, but I am working what one poster mentioned about Reshevsky, on my daily games. Once I improve my openings enough, I will try faster, but longer games like 10 and 15 minutes. For now I have plenty of fun with 1 minute. Keeps my mind nimble at my advancing age.
They seem to have updated this test. Takes longer than I remember anyway.
Based on your move choices, our estimate of your Elo rating is 2015, with a 95% confidence interval of [1891...2140].
Currently I have blitz 1422, rapid 1643, daily 1838 and tactics 2074. It's rather strange that I am so bad at blitz when I can solve tactics problems quickly but there you go.
Makes sense, as I am quite good at tactics trainer for my rating, and the majority of that was basic tactics (there were so many queen sacrifices lmao). Positional problems existed (I think..) but tended to be along the very simple lines of "liberate this piece" or "attack this obvious target".
I've scored around 1560. I play above that on chess.com by taking more time on moves than I took on that tedious test, and also using the analysis board to work out lines (which you can't do on that test).
You're not supposed to use an analysis board during chess.com games. I'm pretty sure that's cheating (not sure about daily games). Anyway, it's better to force yourself to look ahead several moves, without using an analysis board. Then you'll be able to play that well in a real, OTB game.
I think it's allowed. And on the contrary, I find I can do board moves in my head better after using the analysis board, I think it's helping.