What do you think about your own rating?

at first my rating flung too high into the 1800ds, but then i adjusted, i now feel my rating suites me almost perfectly, even though i sometimes can play like a 1600 and sometimes like a 2000 (i wish)

i think im overrated - but maybe i underestimate myself. OK - i dont know.

by the way, my motto - assist if u can, otherwise confuse.

helpful?

Correspondence chess rating is naturally higher because you play better due to

1- more time  2- can move pieces in analysis 3-can check opening with manuals

4-can play/challenge player of your choice etc.

But rating on chess.com is generally higher by 10% compared to FIDE ratings.

Similaraly Live game rating can be lower if your connection is not really good.

The probem is that you will play differently face to face as compared to online. Seriously, the anonymity of the computer relieves some of the stress, and that's only a cery minor part of the mathematical modeling needed to develop a rating system. I know that Erik is a big proponent of the Glicko System. Ratings are extremely difficult to determine even though the formula used is very simple in appearance. When you start to account for all of the subtles that make up a game, statistically speaking, you start to deviate from a simple equation. I can say with some confidence that it is difficult to develop a numerical system that determines an individual's ability to perform. For some reason I do better, and I say this acknowledging that I am a mediocre chess player, face to face as opposed to the internet.

Hugh, though you bring up valid points, you're talking about a different topic. I was comparing my 1800 rating to the other 1800 players on the website, not to my rating in person.

probably would want to compare traditional correspondence USCF or FIDE rating to the chess.com rather than OTB..probably closer to accurate, but OTB you don't have as much time, nor databases, nor analysis board(you must make the moves in your head @ OTB)

I don't like my rating as I didn't obtain it through play, but timouts, but I am not complaining about it to much

My rating is overrated.

I'm probably a 1500 player rather than the 1350 rating I have. Still learning the game at a huge rate of knots and a couple of weeks with no internet led to 4/5 time losses as a result. 3 of which I was winning.

My aim is to get to 2000 - a high target but I haven't been playing Chess online long and only played 'real' chess sporadically during my life and not against anyone any good. Plus I'm only a young'un :)

And I've always felt more comfortable playing with a 'real' chess board against a 'real' person.

Just so everyone knows, I'm actually doing pretty decent in the tournament. Too early to tell how things are going to turn out, but I've already won one game. I'll post it soon, I thought it was pretty good.

Thus far, I'm in the middle of my group in terms of points. I'm pretty satisfied with my results. In all but one of my games have I played a good game. (In the one I blundered and turned a winning position into a losing one).

My Best Win

here's the game I'm most proud of, for those interested.

The best way for you to know your chess rating is to play OTB tournaments.

My CC rating is 1813, and I have only played one game

Doesn't really work, but makes me look better than I am.

 15 months later I'm stuck in the 1700-1750 bracket and quoting myself. I've now played OTB against some folk with actual ratings. Scottish ratings are pretty much the same as FIDE. I'm 50-50 win/lose against a 1200 OTB rated person. Shows how inflated things are here :)

I think I am about a 14-1500 player (USCF rating) I am about 1850 online, and I think that is probably 400 points more than my actual rating.  So yes, I am overated on chess.com.   But, who knows exactly?  Different circumstances to different scenarios...

I've had 1540 recently in blitz but then crap happend and now i'm 1200. Don't have any fide ratings and probably won't have.