# What is a player's true chess rating?

• #61

What the... Flehb's account closed? LOL.

• #62
Ronald_Aprianto wrote:

Owhh,, I'm sorry I dont know : you are the owner of this thread.

No, I'm not. Speaking in general. And you are misbehaving.

• #63
nobodyreally wrote:

What the... Flehb's account closed? LOL.

• #64

• #65
Ronald_Aprianto wrote:

I would give you a match if you knew how to behave. So, the answer is no.

• #66
Ronald_Aprianto wrote:
nobodyreally wrote:

What the... Flehb's account closed? LOL.

So, am I to understand you reported him to the admins?

• #67

A players true rating is the one they get when they play in true tournaments. By that I mean real over the board live tournaments where they give you a rating based on your true results. I hope this helps, good luck.

• #68
Ronald_Aprianto wrote:
petrchpetr wrote:

The_Con_Artist, I agree and disagree. Rating is a bit of science. At least in the sense that the formula is designed so there is a known probability of winning/loosing based on your rating. For example the player who is 200 higher should score 76% of time, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system.

As it is just a probability, it can happen that 2000 player beets 2100 player 10 times in a row. It is very unlikely that 1500 player beets 2500 player 10 times in a row, but still there is a very small chance.

I agree that ratings are overrated, but it is also a good indicator of your personal progress. If your rating goes up, your training plan seems to be good. Bullet and standard ratings are not very comparable, still 2000+ standard chess players tend to be good in blitz and bullet too.

I don't blame you, in spite of  your punk-like literary style. Anyway, I'm afraid that probability can't be based on 5 games. You played thousands of games and it might be interesting to do analysis on the full set. I guess the outcome would be that if we took into account only games with players who had 100 or more games, the probability of winning would be correlated with the elo difference. Some mathematician/programmer as an volunteer to prove/disprove this? And of course technical constraints like lags affects online elo especially for the bullet games, but it's not easy to avoid that.

• #69
Jimmykay wrote:
DrCheckevertim wrote:

[snip]

Thanks. Exactly the answer I wanted

Of course it is...it is the answer that massaged your ego and told you what you wanted to hear...that you are actually okay at chess. That was nice of him. I would have told you otherwise.

I don't think that's what I was saying. If anything, my point was "okay at chess" is relative. Compared to seasoned club players and professionals, obviously he is not a "good" chess player. But, a 1200 player will beat a complete beginner. That shows his effort has taken him somewhere.

• #70
Jimmykay wrote:
DrCheckevertim wrote:

[snip]

Thanks. Exactly the answer I wanted

Of course it is...it is the answer that massaged your ego and told you what you wanted to hear...that you are actually okay at chess. That was nice of him. I would have told you otherwise.

He never told me I'm okay. Making up things to get your point forward is generally not a good idea, just sayin'

• #71

I don't really have a point. I am just making fun of you because I find your persona (Obama/North Korea) and your posts annoying, just sayin'

• #72

Hahaha, just sayin'.

• #73
Jimmykay wrote:

I don't really have a point. I am just making fun of you because I find your persona (Obama/North Korea) and your posts annoying, just sayin'

You have a strange sense of humour

• #74

We are all mad here man.

• #75

Except me

• #76

Especially you.

• #77

Their OTB peak.

• #78

Just.

Saying.

• #79

i dont no

• #80
nobodyreally wrote:
Ronald_Aprianto wrote: