I have seen that many players play with skills which doesent really matches with their rating.
Well, new players are allowed to estimate their skill levels now, so you see some players start at 1800 and spend the next few months spiralling downwards.
If you play these players at any point, you may think them misrated.
For years, everyone started at 1200, so anyone you played rated around 1200 was a wild card.
I have seen that many players play with skills which doesent really matches with their rating.
Well, new players are allowed to estimate their skill levels now, so you see some players start at 1800 and spend the next few months spiralling downwards.
If you play these players at any point, you may think them misrated.
For years, everyone started at 1200, so anyone you played rated around 1200 was a wild card.
Was this intended that some players will start with 1800 or just glitch?
New players have been asked to self-assess their chess skill level for the last several years. I don't know what percentages of people assess as Expert.
/ I believe the new to chess are assigned an 800 rating up to the Expert at 1800. After a few dozen games, the rating will adjust to a proper level.
Even established ratings are not about skill level. Elo ratings are about one's performance, nothing else.One could have good knowledge of chess but not play well on a given day.Only over a period of many played games could one approach an accurate estimate of a player's level. Even that performance history could not predict how well that player might do in the next tournament.
lol
Even established ratings are not about skill level. Elo ratings are about one's performance, nothing else.One could have good knowledge of chess but not play well on a given day.Only over a period of many played games could one approach an accurate estimate of a player's level. Even that performance history could not predict how well that player might do in the next tournament.
The predictions provided are not 100% accurate but one does tend to see the top rated players end up at the top of the big swiss tournaments. There must be a reason for that.
And I believe that the Glicko adjustments make ratings more accurate than ever.
The top masters. In class sections, there are upsets. It is all about performance.
Sometimes a player with a certain rating (lets say 1250) might play only unrated games for about six or so years and gain a whole lot of experience out of it, and if you get paired against that player in a tournament, then he or she could turn out to be a much stronger opponent than what the rating might otherwise suggest, so facing someone rated about 400 points lower than you is not always a guaranteed win. On the other hand, someone with a rating that is significantly higher than yours might have had a similar rating for years on end after playing in many tournaments, while yours has been rising over the last few months, so you might have a chance to score an upset victory in that case! While ratings might give a certain insight on strength, it is not always a completely accurate measure.
I have seen that many players play with skills which doesent really matches with their rating.
I think you're right, I have a chess.com blitz rating of 1900+, while my FIDE Arena rating is just 1750+. I estimate that the real strength of a player in chess.com is 88% to 92%-95.832% of his/her chess.com rating.
For example, a 2200 blitz-rated player will have a chess.com rating of as low as 2292 to as high as 2464! Another example: A grandmaster whose blitz rating in FIDE is 2550 will have a chess.com blitz rating of 2656-2754. And surely, a supergrandmaster whose FIDE blitz rating can be as high as 2790 can get a chess.com blitz rating of 2930-3063! (As of now, the highest blitz rating achieved in the history of chess.com is 3265 by Hikaru Nakamura.)
But this is blitz. I don't know if rapid or classical chess reflects a player's classical strength. I don't play classical chess that much on chess.com, so neither on other chess servers. Maybe yes, they match.
I think the ratings are a pretty accurate guide to where you stand against other players and your current skill level. For some people its just a bit difficult to accept they are nowhere good as they imagined they were. So they endlessly debate the validity of ratings on chess forums until they get the answer they want to hear and which usually consists of comments resembling 'Chess.com ratings are not to be taken seriously' or 'They are all using chess engines' or 'Playing online isn't the same as on a board.' etc etc. On the contrary sometimes they're just fishing for compliments and are pretending not to know how good they are. A sort of false humility if you like! In my experience the ratings on here are a fair indicator of chess ability, but I'm sure numerous players with rankings far below their chess egos will endlessly disagree.
This all tends to get a bit mush-mouthed rather quickly however.
Yes, and then 1301 rated player will call 1300 as lower rated player.!!
Yeah. Given there is no universal system of assessment, rating remains the most reliable indicator of player's strength, compared to one another.
I would add the more games played the better the indicator. A ranking difference of only a few points may well be very significant at the higher levels.
It's the best indicator of player skill available. It doesn't tell the whole story about the player in question. A person's current rating only reflects how well they've been playing recently. Those are my 3 thoughts on the subject.
When looking at how much trouble opponent's with ratings ranging from 1300-1650 give me it sometimes seems like the difficulty of the ladder is an upward trending staircase rather than a straight line but it's probably just my imagination. What I mean is that it briefly gets easier as the opponents' ratings increase but then as they continue to increase it gets harder again such that it's harder than it was to begin with. I'm pretty much 100% certain this is my imagination. It's definitely not ego since it's my perception of other players' skill levels rather than my own.
There's also the sandbagger factor. I recall starting an account on lichess, and getting crushed in blitz by a 1399 player in the first game as they were clearly master level based on the moves they played. I went on to crack into 2050-ish by the time I leveled off, which is about where I stand on this site too.
I'd say don't trust online ratings to be a good indicator unless you can review a history of at least 50 to 100 games in their profile.
I don't think so.
In my opinion, the best answer will be: chess ratings give an estimate of chess skill. Let us not forget the game of chess is complicated and the human beings playing the game of chess are extremely complicated. I know some folks believe Carlsen is the greatest chess player of all time based on ratings. How about Morphy, Capablanca, Fischer, Kasparov...? I can't imagine Carlsen just mopping the floor with those great players.
In my opinion, the best answer will be: chess ratings give an estimate of chess skill. Let us not forget the game of chess is complicated and the human beings playing the game of chess are extremely complicated. I know some folks believe Carlsen is the greatest chess player of all time based on ratings. How about Morphy, Capablanca, Fischer, Kasparov...? I can't imagine Carlsen just mopping the floor with those great players.
I'd also like to add that the same player may play at a different strength on way day vs another. They could be tired, hungry, or just not focused. That could make them appear to be playing worse than their rating would suggest. It could also mimic sandbagging to an extent if they stubbornly continue to play too many games while tired or hungry and lose a lot of rating points. We're not machines.
I have seen that many players play with skills which doesent really matches with their rating.