Net-chess rating compared to FIDE, etc.
Net-chess rating compared to FIDE, etc.
(Disclaimer: I was really expecting to find this in a FAQ somewhere, seems like an obvious question, so my apologies if this has been answering a hundred times.)
How does a net-chess rating compare with a FIDE rating? I know there can't really be an exact comparison, a "ballpark estimate" would be great.
How does a net-chess rating compare with a FIDE rating? I know there can't really be an exact comparison, a "ballpark estimate" would be great.
-
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 3:43 pm
Thanks for the replies. Since my net-chess rating is in the 2100's, I'm guessing my UCSF rating could be around 1400-1500 at best (I'm not unhappy with that).
Of course, not having played in tournament conditions much at all, I've got to learn to manage my time, not touch pieces I don't plan to move, and visualize what will happen in the game instead of moving the pieces around my screen.
I appreciate the responses.
Of course, not having played in tournament conditions much at all, I've got to learn to manage my time, not touch pieces I don't plan to move, and visualize what will happen in the game instead of moving the pieces around my screen.
I appreciate the responses.
-
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 3:43 pm
I am not so positive you should really be that down. For one: Online chess really has no police most of the time. So especially on here you don't know what the guy is using. I am being thrashed right now by someone who is probably using a form a crafty, and he is 1500. Two: Some of us don't play up to our tournament potential when playing on here because of laziness. That too can throw off the count.
My recommendation, which I follow, is to play on a site where the ratings are stable. I don't mean to insult this place, I really like the games I play here and I enjoy some of the conversations. However, in all honesty, I wouldn't take this rating worth rice. If you want a place I goto as a good rating example you can goto www.freechess.org they are free and you can see what your strength potentially is. The theory is that it can be within the regular 50-100 range. Hopefully you are familiar with the 50/100 rule in this case.
My rating there pretty much reflects the rating for uscf.
Also if you have time, use this place as these places were intended. As a learning tool. Do off the wall stuff, practice openings, get out of your comfort zone. Two things that are generally not accepted in live play like OTB or FICS or ICC or sites like them is the ability to research your position. Books sometimes are frowned upon but they are generally accepted because of the effort it takes to truly research a line. Another would be the ability to analyse the chess board for as long as you want. That includes moving pieces around. Those two practices are usually accepted in correspondence and turn base style chess. Hopefully this helped you out a bit.
My recommendation, which I follow, is to play on a site where the ratings are stable. I don't mean to insult this place, I really like the games I play here and I enjoy some of the conversations. However, in all honesty, I wouldn't take this rating worth rice. If you want a place I goto as a good rating example you can goto www.freechess.org they are free and you can see what your strength potentially is. The theory is that it can be within the regular 50-100 range. Hopefully you are familiar with the 50/100 rule in this case.
My rating there pretty much reflects the rating for uscf.
Also if you have time, use this place as these places were intended. As a learning tool. Do off the wall stuff, practice openings, get out of your comfort zone. Two things that are generally not accepted in live play like OTB or FICS or ICC or sites like them is the ability to research your position. Books sometimes are frowned upon but they are generally accepted because of the effort it takes to truly research a line. Another would be the ability to analyse the chess board for as long as you want. That includes moving pieces around. Those two practices are usually accepted in correspondence and turn base style chess. Hopefully this helped you out a bit.
Ratings out of whack
I just lost a game to acidtest and my rating went up 264 points. What's up with that? Is it typical to gain points, especially 264, by losing a game? To top that off my rating went from a provisional 1500 to 2072 after winning my first game. I'm not sure what the formula is for determining a rating on this site but it can't be right, at least not by FIDE standards. I have played against rated players so I know my rating should be somewhere in the neighborhood of 1700. My net-chess rating as of this writing is 2336, which even in my most optimistic mind is much too high for my current level of play. Why are the numbers so high compared to the FIDE system? I suppose it really doesn't make much difference in reality as long as everyone is playing with the same understanding. It was just surprising to see how high my numbers went after only two games, especially since my record was one and one.
Thanks everyone for the responses.
jumpnmustang, you make a lot of good points. I am interested, when I can find some time, in going to a local chess club (although FISC might be a good way to get my toe into tournament-rules play, thanks for the tip).
I knew the stats here were inflated (I guess just because of the mix of players here) and if someone asked my "online rating" I wanted to have some way of explaining the numbers.
So the formula I'm seeing is:
NetChess Rating - 600 + Large grain of salt ~= FIDE rating
jumpnmustang, you make a lot of good points. I am interested, when I can find some time, in going to a local chess club (although FISC might be a good way to get my toe into tournament-rules play, thanks for the tip).
I knew the stats here were inflated (I guess just because of the mix of players here) and if someone asked my "online rating" I wanted to have some way of explaining the numbers.
So the formula I'm seeing is:
NetChess Rating - 600 + Large grain of salt ~= FIDE rating
-
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 3:43 pm
To answer the question on why a rating will jump up when you lose.
First let me answer the most basic part of that: You are provisional. So the amount gained is soley based on the performance rating multiplied by the games you played before. The numbers will be high, the normal time frame generally is about 25 games in a normal elo based system. Which if my memory serves me correctly, this is based on the elo system.
On why you gained: The way elo is set up, you have a base rating that you should be playing at. You need to play at approximately that level give or take 100-150 points. This is also the level you should consider yourself in. (In other words if you are 1850, generally speaking you can consider yourself in the "A" section. And if you want to be more precise you are an A player with some B tendencies.) Now, with the formula that elo uses, Anyone who plays someone who is more than (Don't quite me on this, I believe this is the number) ~500 points +- there rating will gain/lose no matter the outcome. I believe its a terrible system in which there have a been a few attempts to clear this up. For example "Glicko" is a system that attempts to clear that up, but it has it's own flaws. Not too far off this subject. If you take me for example who is approximately 1900 USCF. If I was to play someone who is 1300 I should in theory gain either zero points from winning or lose a few. If I played lower say an 1100, I will definitely lose a few. Contrariwise the lower rated losing to me would gain. This by definition is one of the reasons high rated players do not like to play low rated players. They feel put out to play them because the only things they get out of winning is to up them in the standings. Then what happens if they lose.
It was to promote professional chess, but I am not so sure it promotes it myself. I do prefer Glicko, and I do hope one day that Glicko becomes the standard. It may not be flawless but it's one of the best I have seen.
I hope this wasn't too wordy.
First let me answer the most basic part of that: You are provisional. So the amount gained is soley based on the performance rating multiplied by the games you played before. The numbers will be high, the normal time frame generally is about 25 games in a normal elo based system. Which if my memory serves me correctly, this is based on the elo system.
On why you gained: The way elo is set up, you have a base rating that you should be playing at. You need to play at approximately that level give or take 100-150 points. This is also the level you should consider yourself in. (In other words if you are 1850, generally speaking you can consider yourself in the "A" section. And if you want to be more precise you are an A player with some B tendencies.) Now, with the formula that elo uses, Anyone who plays someone who is more than (Don't quite me on this, I believe this is the number) ~500 points +- there rating will gain/lose no matter the outcome. I believe its a terrible system in which there have a been a few attempts to clear this up. For example "Glicko" is a system that attempts to clear that up, but it has it's own flaws. Not too far off this subject. If you take me for example who is approximately 1900 USCF. If I was to play someone who is 1300 I should in theory gain either zero points from winning or lose a few. If I played lower say an 1100, I will definitely lose a few. Contrariwise the lower rated losing to me would gain. This by definition is one of the reasons high rated players do not like to play low rated players. They feel put out to play them because the only things they get out of winning is to up them in the standings. Then what happens if they lose.
It was to promote professional chess, but I am not so sure it promotes it myself. I do prefer Glicko, and I do hope one day that Glicko becomes the standard. It may not be flawless but it's one of the best I have seen.
I hope this wasn't too wordy.