FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
I clicked on the Members, and then Country List, and the above data appeared. I just find it ridiculous to see top rated players with 2800+ and/or 2900+. Wouldn't it be much more nice to see their Live Chess rating instead? Unless they are Kasparov or Carlsen or Topalov, this display of ratings is just probably what I would call 'fantastic'.
@ManicDragon: Yes, thanks for the directory.
Now what I'm trying to convey is that, being a new member, the first area I will navigate is the main page, so I clicked Members then Country List, and a bit surprised by the rating list. I looked at their Live Chess ratings and which does not match their Online/Correspondence rating.
I view Live Chess like an OTB chess, and I believe that what should be displayed are Live Chess ratings and not the other ratings.
Where is the "View Players" option exactly ?
This site is primarily based on turn-based, correspondence style play. Live chess is a nice extra, but it doesn't make sense to have this as the main rating when it simply is not.
Go to either "Online Chess" or "Live Chess" under "My Home". It will be on the right under "Play Chess" or "Live Chess".
I guess it looks kind of silly using quotation marks around everything, but whatever.
Found it now, thanks.
But then the simple existence of Chess.com's Live Chess means that it will be much more of worth to display a real human's performance than Correspondence ratings. Are their any members here whose accounts were closed because their Correspondence ratings tell they're not really playing fair square chess? I'm not saying everyone on the list receive some kind of assistance from Kasparov or Ljubojevic or Morphy.
Somehow, I thought I would see something similar like this. Is there any website which displays a list of Correspondence Chess ratings?
But then the simple existence of Chess.com's Live Chess means that it will be much more of worth to display a real human's performance than Correspondence ratings.
This makes no sense. On a primarily correspondence website, it makes more sense to display correspondence ratings.
Are their any members here whose accounts were closed because their Correspondence ratings tell they're not really playing fair square chess?
Yes, but we're not really supposed to discuss it. People love dropping hints (read as "blurting it out"), though.
ahhh...so it does exist. I'm not going to argue with that. I was just wondering that if a Correspondence Chess would have a 3-day move, are these 2800+/2900+ players really that match to Carlsen's or Topalov's caliber? I'm starting to get curious about it. They have 3 days to decide on a move, and still I think Topalov can play them blindfolded (well, not blindfolded for 3 days).
Yes, that's about right. There have been other topics about OTB (over the board) chess champion vs a CC (correspondence chess) champion. It's widely agreed that the OTB champ could crush the CC champ in either type of play.
And that's "real" CC players. The ratings on this site have no relation to national or FIDE ratings -- and they tend to be a bit bloated anyway. These ratings are relative to the pool of players here.
Most people in CC seem to move pretty fast until they arrive into a lost position, then they start using their 3 days per move.
And most probably go on 'vacation'. I saw this option in my profile, and that if I become a paying member I'll have more vacations added?
Should Correspondence Chess be rated at all? I have read about Kasparov playing correspondence simul against 5 masters, and I think it was rated - same with Fischer who had to play via telex - and these games were under supervisions of arbiters.
Correspondence chess like this in chess.com or other sites like chesscube, gameknot, etc. - without supervisions of arbiters - in my opinion should be played unrated. And that rated games becomes only optional in Live Chess.
Think of your rating not only as a stregth meter but also something to wager when you play a game. It add that extra sense of exitement and risk to winning and losing and that is never a bad thing.
It's always a relief to think that chess is a game of fun, and ratings add to excitements.
Okay, suppose that I have no official FIDE rating at all. I played OTB chess just down a street corner. My opponent asked me of my rating, if I have any. What would I tell him? Should I tell him that my rating is 2950? And then he might reply 'whoa, how did you get that rating?' On turn-based chess? If indeed, then it goes to say that I am at the league of Carlsen if Magnus would allow me to think over my moves for a maximum of 3 days for each and every move.
I'd like to live in a real world. CC should not be rated at all. If you really want to gauge your strength, go to Live Chess and play rated games (since you can play unrated games in live chess as well)
I will add a scenario: think of this when you play 1,000 turn-based games set to 3 days or 1 day per move - and then an important matter came up. You had to attend to these urgent matters and you lost the thousand games by being not able to make a move (and I think the thousand opponents would be offended if the games linger on for weeks if automatically were set on vacation)
I think/want/demand that live chess be unrated, that down be up (but not vice-verse), and that all of humanity worship me and hold my personal views. I can't imagine why none of this is happening, though. I guess complaining in an Internet forum isn't working...
And I thought we're having a forum, is it bad to bring up an idea? And I'm not complaining about anything. If I do, then I should I have had contacted chess.com and demand that they remove the displaying of CC ratings.
I was surprised to see 2900+ rated players but no more than 2600 in live chess ratings.
Live and correspondence ratings are unrelated. Online chess and FIDE ratings are unrelated. We're trying to tell you that you can only compare them to ratings within the same pool.
You might have some personal issues with correspondence chess, but not everyone is of this pathology. I don't see much of a basis for depriving everyone of every "rating pool" but your own.
Are there any chess.com players here who felt they were 'robbed' of their ratings because they lost to a non-human opponent, like a centaur or something?
thanks ManicDragon for that pic, hehe.
hmm, talking about Magnus, Kasparov and Topalov: that if these guys join chess.com and play CC, they'd most likely have ratings above 4000, if the rating system allows such calculations to exceed 3000.