So seriously, is anyone above...

[Ondskan]

...9000?

I mean I keep hearing Im 2000...Im 1500...I'm 2100 etc.

 

[JonathanStrange]

I'm not sure what any online ratings really represent anymore. I do know that in over-the-board tournaments where world champions are decided, 2700-2800 is world class. Online ratings? Very hard to assess.

 

[DaveShack]

Ratings are only useful for comparing relative player strengths, and then only represent a statistical view of the difference in strengths. The system used on chess.com is very similar to the USCF and FIDE ratings, in which ~2300 is the beginning of "Master" strength, ~2600 roughly equates to Grandmaster, and ~2800 gets into the world champion candidate levels. Various organization's systems might be 100-200 points higher or lower depending on the population of players. The chess.com ones seem to be inflated a bit vs. the traditional ones.

In the FIDE / USCF / chess.com system, a rating of 9000 would indicate the player is something like 25 standard deviations from the center of the rating curve, and would statistically be only losing something like one game in a million.

 

[Flying Pig]

Ratings confuse me because you get a big move for a few wins or losses.

 

[WhiteEagle22]

Tell me about it!

 

[Flying Pig]

I'm currently playing a game which is +200 for a win, -50 for a loss and +12 for a draw - that can't be an accurate reflection of ability.

 

[Narz]

Well, when you only have a few games your rating swings dramatically.

 

[Buster's Uncle]

Ratings are only useful for comparing relative player strengths, and then only represent a statistical view of the difference in strengths. The system used on chess.com is very similar to the USCF and FIDE ratings, in which ~2300 is the beginning of "Master" strength, ~2600 roughly equates to Grandmaster, and ~2800 gets into the world champion candidate levels. Various organization's systems might be 100-200 points higher or lower depending on the population of players. The chess.com ones seem to be inflated a bit vs. the traditional ones.

In the FIDE / USCF / chess.com system, a rating of 9000 would indicate the player is something like 25 standard deviations from the center of the rating curve, and would statistically be only losing something like one game in a million.

If that. A hundred points counts for more at Grandmaster level. :nod:

 

[WhiteEagle22]

Well, when you only have a few games your rating swings dramatically.

It also swings big time if you win against a way stronger player, or lose against a way weaker player. I've noticed both on Chess.com.

 

[Riffraff]

It also swings big time if you win against a way stronger player, or lose against a way weaker player. I've noticed both on Chess.com.

Well that makes sense doesn't it?

Additionally, if you have few recently ranked games, your rating swings more aswell. Conversely if your opponent has many ranked games the rating is affected more than if he only has fewer games.

 

[WhiteEagle22]

Well that makes sense doesn't it?

Additionally, if you have few recently ranked games, your rating swings more aswell. Conversely if your opponent has many ranked games the rating is affected more than if he only has fewer games.

It does, and I'm hoping to take advantage of it twice (if I can win both games!).