I think i said quite plainly that it's way way more difficult to get to 2300 from 1800 then 1800 from 1300, however let's say I'm 1800 and go by CFC ratings. I have just as good a chance of beating a 2300 as a 1300 has of beating me, that's my point, for the most part as long as the ratings are accurate this statment is true. For juniors it usually isn't as their always improving and are often underrated because they haven't played in as many tournaments.

Ratin'.

The fact that a 1800 doesn't suck

I've been over 1800 USCF since 2009 and as high as 1982. I suck.

2300s don't suck. I have one OTB draw from my three rated games against players at that level. I'm under 1900 due to a loss to a 1300. 

What? I have a win in Tournament play against a 2300

I'll tell you when I reach 1800

in some years

So one could say the learning curve of chess is exponential

i just learned the rules of chess, so don't you think 2 or 3 years of time is enough to get to 1800?

hey, I got this app can someone play with me?

Very smart hardworking kids can make fide 1800 in three years, and online chess.com 1800 a bit faster.

1800 fide is a good level, that usually belongs to clubplayers who has been playing for decades. In my club, Nordstrand, with ca 100 embers, I am not sure if anybody reached 1800 fide that fast, but i guess Andreas Tenold will make it. he is 9 years old  at ca 1500 fide, and skyrocketing. I think has only played a year, and is already able to give the 1800`s an ineresting game.

Most fide 1800´s are so good at openings that they are almost impossible to outplay in the start, they must be otplayed in the middlegame and the endgame, after a smooth start. To be that good at openingsand general chess takes a lot of time and experience, usually more than three years.

I tend to think the difference between an 1800 and a 2300 is actually basically the same as the difference between an 1800 and a 1300, if we're going by, how badly/how likely we would expect one person to lose in a match, etc. Of course, the increase in knowledge needed to jump from 1300 to 1800 is totally different from that needed to jump from 1800 to 2300.

I think the elo system is one of those things that people are actually too sceptical of (usually people are not sceptical enough of things). This number changes with every single tournament game; it accounts for all the ups and downs; it accounts for all the clashes of style (and even the effect of this tends to be quite overestimated), etc etc. Sure, it's possible to manipulate the system a little bit if you only play four players dozens of times or something, but you really have to dig for exceptions to give problems for the rating system. Concerns about variability, psychology, etc, are really just accounted for -- those things affect your results, and those results go into your number, and thus the "prediction" for how you will do against your opponent. And predictions are guesses of course, sometimes right and sometimes wrong, but those predictions are very well grounded when it comes to the rating system.

Maybe it's because people don't like to be summarized by a number. They want to wiggle their way out of a label, like they can often do. Unfortunately for them, their rating is actually quite objective and not at all easy to explain away. Yeah, I perform better as a chess player than you if I have a clearly higher rating than you, no matter how much you don't "care for" my play. Of course people can improve, and maybe their rating hasn't "caught up" to their improvement, but measuring how high their rating "should be" tends to be extremely biased and in most cases is not as reliable as simply looking at the rating they already have.

I dont think Fide-ELO is a prediction. It is used to divide players into classes, but its not a prediction. ELO is summing up results from the past, and tells how strong the players have been.

My Elo is based on how good I was as a beginner this winter, and increased when better results ticked in this autumn. It is not the same as my latest results (which more accurately describes my new strenght), but it is between my late results and my winterresults.

Players that has been on the same level for years do have Elo-rating that is describing their current strenght quite well.

Kids that is improving very fast are of course very underrated, because they are much stronger now , than they were back in August/September. I guess that todays  Elo might describe quite close how good the player was in August.

I feel thatChess.com ratings are closer up to date, but they are also describing strenghts of the past, but a bit closer past.

I think I have Elo.  I didnt know it was a man. I thought it was ratingnumbers or a ratingsystem. Maybe its both? Heres my fidecard: http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=1524283

My fiderating is1422.

I have not read Elo, so I am talking about what I believes chessratings describes.

I think its strange to call it predictions, but at the same time I think the ratings is the best statistics we have to build predictions on. I will not say its predictions. It is numbers you achieve AFTER scoring aginst other players with such numbers.

ED_Seedhouse, thanks for the ELO-book link. Interesting!  :-)

I didnt know the background,

It is not logical that rating is predictions.

Everybody I know have got their numbers AFTER their performances. You dont have to read a book too see that.

Do you disagree that rating is describing a strenght , or performance from the past? My FIDE rating is 1422, and it is set from results from the past, actually from results between when I restarted competing in january up to ca the end of november.

If I should predict ratingscore, I guess it will be closer to Fide 1600 than 1422 in the next tournament. That is prediction. 1422 is new history/statistics/old facts.

I admit I have not read anything from ELO, how could I, I didnt have a clue that Elo was a name. But what I write does make sense, or what?

Ed_Seedhouse, I found this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

Interesting.  :-)

Well personally I went from about 1200 to 1400 in a few months. The difference is now I know a few more complicated openings, I recognize more tactical positions and I recognize opponent mistakes better. That's probably the main difference between any two ratings.

The difference is the 1800 player will probably beat the 1300, but who knows? Maybe the 1300 is better and will win?

1300s that is better than 1800 are usually kids, maybe at the age of 9,10 or 11. I am a middleaged fastrising man, and I am at 1422 worse than 1800s , and probably closer to 1600 level, while Linnea, 9 years old at 1425 Fide is significantly better than me, more like 1700.

I guess Magnus Carlsen, when he got 1300, can have been above 1800 strenght, because he elevated from ca 900 to 1900 in a year.

That's a good point. Some 1300 players have potential to reach 1800 or higher but may not have experienced as many mistakes and have not learned certain aspects of the game yet to allow them to improve.