The ratings here are so low, wow.
Sort:
Did you know in the past the leader of Venice was known as the doge?
I did not.
Its true
notmtwain wrote:
Like others have tried to explain, ratings only matter as a measure of success against a particular group.
Therefore, the fact that your rating is lower here than elsewhere doesn't matter.
It's like the different temperature scales- Fahrenheit and Celsius. What do you do if someone tells you it's 30 out? Do you put on a coat or dress in shorts? It depends on which scale is being used.
The number (alone) doesn't give you enough information unless you can assume you know what scale is being used.
There are only two main scales used in reporting weather temperature.
...
It's not at all like the difference between Fahrenheit and Celsius. There is a precise formula for converting one temperature to another. They measure exactly the same thing. Chess ratings measure only the population of players in a given group.
Chess sites don't even all have precisely the same way of measuring ratings. This site for example gives everyone a base rating. That's incorrect according the Glicko system it purports to use. Other sites start players out as UNRATED. There are other differences in how ratings are calculated, most of which are quite minor.
But chess ratings on different sites are not similar to the way temperature is measured.
I stole this from another site but I think it pretty accurately sums it up.
Ratings are calculated using the Glicko-2 rating method developed by Mark Glickman. This is a very popular rating method, and is used by a significant amount of chess organisations (FIDE being a notable counter-example, as they still use the dated Elo rating system).
Fundamentally, Glicko ratings use "confidence intervals" when calculating and representing your rating. When you first start using the site, your rating starts at 1500 ± 700. The 1500 represents your rating, and the 700 represents the confidence interval.
Basically, the system is 90% sure that your rating is somewhere between 800 and 2200. It is incredibly uncertain. Because of this, when a player is just starting out, their rating will change very dramatically, potentially several hundred points at a time. But after several games, the confidence interval will narrow, and the amount of points gained/lost after each game will lessen.
Another thing to note is that the confidence interval changes over time. If you win or lose many games (or rather "points") in a row, the confidence interval will increase allowing you to gain/lose points points more rapidly. This is because a winning/losing streak means that you are incorrectly rated/seeded and the rating system should compensate for that.
"Why use 1500, and why use Glicko in the first place? I much preferred it when the ratings started at 1200 and Elo was used; it was far more accurate with FIDE ratings."
1500 is used because it is the figure specified by the Glicko-2 documentation that can be accessed here: www.glicko.net/glicko/glicko2.pdf
The change from Elo to Glicko was a conscious decision. The main issue with Elo was that ratings moved too rapidly. Against a player of equal strength, it was possible to gain or lose 100 points in less than a handful of games. There were other issues as well, such as most players (of vastly different strengths) being bulked together near 1200. This was incredibly problematic.
After changing to Glicko-2, players have been far more evenly spread-out within the rating ranges, making it far easier to find an opponent of appropriate strength. It is also far easier to maintain a rating.
"But ratings are far higher compared to other sites and organisations such as FIDE, USCF, the ICC, etc... What's up with that?"
It is best not to think of ratings as absolute numbers, or compare them against other organisations. Different organisations have different levels of players, different rating systems (Elo, Glicko, Glicko-2, or a modified version of the aforementioned). These factors can drastically affect the absolute numbers (ratings).
It's best to think of ratings as "relative" figures (as opposed to "absolute" figures). By this I mean: within a pool of players, their relative differences in ratings will help you estimate who will win/draw/loss, and how often. Saying "I have X rating" means nothing unless there are other players to compare that rating to.
It is true. I am 2000 on another site and 1200 here. Engine users deflate rating. I actually estimate my true strength to be about 2300 FIDE.
2000
Fight me.
Y’all are toxic. Where is myratingis1532 or whatever to tell you guys how it really is..
... which is why one of the things I will do as a staff members is increase the ratings for everyone! Check out point 3 in my campaign platform at the link below:
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/support-my-campaign-for-chess-com-staff-member
If you agree that the people of chess.com deserve higher ratings, please lend your support to my campaign! Together, we can enact meaningful change to #MaceChesscomGreatAgain!
As far as percentile goes I’m top 10% this site top 15% of the other one. Weird since my rating is clearly lower here.
AlkinKing wrote:
As far as percentile goes I’m top 10% this site top 15% of the other one. Weird since my rating is clearly lower here.
Imagine if the highest rated person on the other site were 2000 and the highest rated person on chess.com is 3000. See how that might work?
(Ok I wrote that backwards but you get the idea)
I'm a solid 1600 player elsewhere, but I struggle to hold the mid 1300 here at chess.com. What's the deal with this?
