So if each system has its benefits then all the players should have all the ratings, but only FIDE rating is used for the famous players. If FIDE rating has more benefits, why it is not used in the tournoments of this site?
FIDE rating vs Standard rating
Sort:
FIDE isn't a system, it's an international organization. FIDE doesn't offer it's rating to everybody, they only offer it to people who play in sanctioned tournaments. These tournaments must be supervised by an arbiter who is certified to know the rules of chess.
The laws of chess aren't just how the pieces move but rules on score keeping, the clock, draws, illegal moves, how to settle disputes and more.
Even if this site wanted to offer a FIDE rating they couldn't get FIDE to agree to it. Online ratings let you track progress and estimate a strength because like goldendog said they try to make it close to other ratings like FIDE.
waffllemaster wrote:
FIDE isn't a system, it's an international organization. FIDE doesn't offer it's rating to everybody, they only offer it to people who play in sanctioned tournaments. These tournaments must be supervised by an arbiter who is certified to know the rules of chess.
The laws of chess aren't just how the pieces move but rules on score keeping, the clock, draws, illegal moves, how to settle disputes and more.
Even if this site wanted to offer a FIDE rating they couldn't get FIDE to agree to it. Online ratings let you track progress and estimate a strength because like goldendog said they try to make it close to other ratings like FIDE.
So, FIDE rating can be used only for one type of game with fixed rules without flexibility. Furthermore since FIDE organization doesn't permit to use FIDE rating then we use another rating system (probably worse than FIDE) and try to make it close to FIDE. Is it true?
mahdihatam wrote:
waffllemaster wrote:
FIDE isn't a system, it's an international organization. FIDE doesn't offer it's rating to everybody, they only offer it to people who play in sanctioned tournaments. These tournaments must be supervised by an arbiter who is certified to know the rules of chess.
The laws of chess aren't just how the pieces move but rules on score keeping, the clock, draws, illegal moves, how to settle disputes and more.
Even if this site wanted to offer a FIDE rating they couldn't get FIDE to agree to it. Online ratings let you track progress and estimate a strength because like goldendog said they try to make it close to other ratings like FIDE.
So, FIDE rating can be used only for one type of game with fixed rules without flexibility. Furthermore since FIDE organization doesn't permit to use FIDE rating then we use another rating system (probably worse than FIDE) and try to make it close to FIDE. Is it true?
Yes, that's about right. The math used to make the ratings are the same (or very close) but people don't treat them the same for different reasons.
One reason you really couldn't brag about your online rating is because you might have cheated to get it... no one really knows unless they play you face to face. So because FIDE events are supervised and have strict rules people can be sure your FIDE rating really means something.
Even so when I see someone here at chess.com that is much higher rated than me I assume they're better even if they have no FIDE rating or where I live I have a USCF rating which is similar. I don't assume people cheat, but that's just one reason people think of the ratings as different.
ajedrecito wrote:
It's better than FIDE for our purposes. Why would you say it is worse? As it is, FIDE is a standard and chess.com ratings make no effort to be close to FIDE. They just happen to correlate somewhat.
The staff started the big thread on regulating the inflating bullet rating even introducing ratings caps for those that aren't titled and who don't play. I believe it was erik who said he was pleased that some of the other ratings were close to FIDE. All this to say I do think they make an effort to be close... or at least it's on their minds anyway.
ajedrecito wrote:
I didn't say they don't make an effort, I said the rating make no effort. There isn't a category that's reliably within 100 points of FIDE.
I have to agree. Someone was saying live blitz here was pretty close, but doesn't seem like it to me. Ok I've only played 1 day worth of blitz here but really anywhere you play online for one reason or another it seems like the quality of opponents is simply lower for a given rating.
Except sometimes ICC lol. I've run into some 1700-1800 blitz players who seem really really strong. Of course their "best" in that category is usually something like 400-500 points higher and I wonder how they fell as low as 1800 heh.
waffllemaster wrote:
Except sometimes ICC lol. I've run into some 1700-1800 blitz players who seem really really strong. Of course their "best" in that category is usually something like 400-500 points higher and I wonder how they fell as low as 1800 heh.
yes, I agree. A chess player with blitz rating 1200 can easily achieve standard rating 1600-1700 ! However these are only numbers. It may two rating systems are exactly the same but has different scale or bias etc. for example
rating1=2 x rating2 +300
ratings 1 and 2 above are exactly the same but have different numbers. Do FIDE and standard ratings have one-to-one relations (like above ratings) in similar conditions?
Hi,
My question is about difference between the ratings
What is difference between FIDE and standard ratings?
Why FIDE rating is not used on this site?