The ELO review feature seems to be based partially on your actual ELO. That's why you didn't get infinity ELO for a 100% accurate game, and your opponent didn't get 700 for blundering a piece.
Perfect game?!?!?! Also chess.com game review ELO estimate is scuffed
Sort:
Anih1list wrote:
The ELO review feature seems to be based partially on your actual ELO. That's why you didn't get infinity ELO for a 100% accurate game, and your opponent didn't get 700 for blundering a piece.
Makes sense I guess.
MelvinGarvey wrote:
For what I know since ever, you don't blunder a "minor", but a piece. If it happens to be a Rook, you then say a Rook, even if it's a piece. In the context, a "piece" will be understood like a Bishop or a Knight.
It's maybe not so important, and maybe does the chess slang evolve. Yet, within 35 years chess competition, along with books and magazines reading, it always was a "piece".
Yeah, you're definitely right, original comment spoken like a true 1150 rapid player (me) lol.
Apr 12, 2023
0
#6
yeetyeetcorona wrote:
I'm rated ~1100 Rapid on Chess.com.
In this match from a few weeks ago, I played a rapid game in which according to analysis afterwards, I had an accuracy of 100%! I was up a minor by the end of the opening, and my opponent instantly resigned.
https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/70702887923?tab=details-tab
What's in my opinion even funnier though is that, going back to it, Chess.com's new ELO estimate feature said that it thought that I played like an 1800, and my opponent like an 1100. As an 1100 myself, I find it both hilarious and slightly offensive that Chess.com thinks we blunder a whole minor during the opening in an average game.
Anyone else have funny ELO estimation stories? I can already tell this will make Gotham's Guess The ELO series even funnier.
my friend inserted a OTB rated(fide) game without inserting any rating(I didn't have any rating, opponent=1060) and it says that I and my opponent played like 2150s while i'm 1200 in cc lol
me one time ive gote 2800 elo performance with the damiao gambit and mate
Apr 26, 2023
0
#8
The new report card thing is supposed to be an estimate of your Elo when u played the game. That doesnt mean your Elo is that rating, because other games might have different elo
yes i knowit was an estimation
Apr 26, 2023
0
#10
I just ran the estimator without the rating input, and it said 1350 against 2300 lol.
lmao
3000 hahahaha
Nov 22, 2023
0
#13
The game review always seems to over estimate how well both players played. Over the last 113 games I have played on average 180 above my rating but actually I haven't progressed because my opponents tend to be better.
I'm rated ~1100 Rapid on Chess.com.
In this match from a few weeks ago, I played a rapid game in which according to analysis afterwards, I had an accuracy of 100%! I was up a minor by the end of the opening, and my opponent instantly resigned.
https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/70702887923?tab=details-tab
What's in my opinion even funnier though is that, going back to it, Chess.com's new ELO estimate feature said that it thought that I played like an 1800, and my opponent like an 1100. As an 1100 myself, I find it both hilarious and slightly offensive that Chess.com thinks we blunder a whole minor during the opening in an average game.
Anyone else have funny ELO estimation stories? I can already tell this will make Gotham's Guess The ELO series even funnier.