My Chess Rating

I have been on this site for the last few months and I'm not doing too bad. I just looked at the statistics and it says I'm in the 76^th percentile with a rating of 1101 and accuracy of 76%. Does this mean that I'm better than three quarters of the Chess players out there, or does it only hold for this site?

I feel pretty good about that figure at age 64 and not having played seriously for the past five years, or more. I do this for brain exercise, but my numbers on here don't match the reality. Out of 21 games that I've played, five of those ended with my opponent going to the bathroom and never coming back. Four were within the opening moves. Only one was in the middle game, at move 31, by a guy rated at 1200. So, I beat a 1200. Not. He had previously beaten me in one of the best games I've had on here. I was one move away from Mate and he Mated me. Turns out we were both only playing at 50% accuracy, but the entire game was fantastic. The kind of game that turns out fun, win or lose. I wanted to beat him legitimately. He's playing Bullet now. He had no reason to give up on the game.

My accuracy is actually 69% on the other 16 games that I would include in my total. Why factor in incomplete games?

And the blunder theory, quoted and misquoted, I have to agree with. Three of the five games on here that I've lost were due to complete blunders when I forgot, or ignored, my own set of rules. Move the stupid King in behind the wing pawn after you throw it out. I got mated. Fool's mate, pretty much. I was thinking how strong the standard corner position is with Castling and having your Knight in front. Not with a Queen, a Bishop and a Rook shooting at you. I neglected Queen takes pawn, King's pawn can't attack. Actually, it was the first, and only, time I've resigned a game. He had me by the short and curlies.

I'm going back to basics. It's been thirty years since I read and studied theory. We had a copy of Nimzovich. Just found a copy of Capablanca as an eBook on the Project Gutenberg site. Many of the old Chess manuals are out of copyright and readily available for free on Gutenberg and The Internet Archive, archive dotorg. Chessmen of Mars is next.

I'm beating the computer at 1200 and will now aim for 1500. After some study and practice I should be able to play at 1200 and then work up from there. I gotta get my chops back, but there are some tough players on here, even the ones below 1000 can come up with some devastating moves. I've never had the opportunity to play nothing but tough opponents. Most people don't play Chess and there were only a few folks in my Chess club that I never beat. I beat the President one night when he made a blunder. There you go. “Well, I blunder, blunder, blunder, blunder, who...who wrote the book of Chess....”

I want to go to a tournament, but I can only see a bunch of little kids cleaning my clock. Plus I'm used to swilling beer at Chess Club, which I think is frowned upon by most Tournament Officials. They won't know it's Courvoisier in my water bottle, at least until the fifth or sixth game.

Don't take any of my other posts too seriously. I'm here to have fun. Thanks for a great site, a great group of people, and some tough games.

“The only thing I don't like about Chess is that it becomes like a Chess game after awhile.”

The percentile calculation you cited only ranks you against daily chess players active on chess.com within the last 90 days.  

One day I'll be up to your level, till then I'll be one of those sub 1000 players that every now and then stumbles on magic😆 enjoy the ride

So, it is in no way an accurate reflection of my position within the Greater World of Chess, which is probably lower. I still feel pretty good about my performance on here. Thanks for the info justbefair. 

Your chess rating is enough to beat 9 out of 10 people who know the rules and sometime play on ocasions at their homes, and is enough to lose to 9 out of 10 people who are playing in an amateur chess club.

That sounds about right, DianaM. Thanks for the assessment. I'm beginning to think I've never actually played against persons who really know what they're doing. We were only a handful in our Chess club, socializing at the bar/coffee house we hung out at. What rating should we have on here on Daily to consider going to a live tournament?

well, im having 1600 here and i have bad rezults over the board tourney, and Fide rate me 1200. But again it depends whom you are facing.

Your flag says you're from Moldova...  I've never heard of it.  Don't think it's a real country.

It's not. There are only 3 countries in the world: 'Murica, Europe and Chinafrica. Everything else is a fake news conspiracy made up by round-earthers.

Look at the war map. She's right next to the fighting, just west of Crimea. I'd challenge you to a game, Diana, just for the flag, but you'd clean my clock and be bored. It's only Canadia which isn't really a country.

So, I'm the Best of the Worst and the Worst of the Best. I can live with that. Up with Mediocraty.

I learned the moves as a kid but never cared much for it. I'd beat my friends at school and get destroyed by my parents so it was never really competitive and I liked doing physical activities better. But I never learned tactics, strategy or anything so it faded. Fast forward 20 years later I decided to play my roommate senior year in college on a night with nothing to do just cause and we ended up playing some 30-40 more games until the end of the year.  Games that would last an hour or maybe even more. No clocks or anything. Just beer and the tv on, but still we took it seriously. After we graduated couldn't play with him anymore, but still wanted to so I joined chess.com and my rating was some 700. I improved a bit, but due to life in general never was able to really play tournaments even though I really want to.

I haven't really played an OTB tournament except for a couple of blitz fun with beer as prize in a bar near my house before covid hit (hopefully they'll start that again soon) but I am planning on as soon as I have put some things in order, because it would be some 40 min drive.

So I would tell you to just do it If you have the opportunity to play in a amateur (or something like that) tournament. I think you should go regardless of rating and just enjoy the experience. As you said you do this for brain exercise and results shouldn't matter much. Plus it's a good way to get experience and improve for your next tournament when you got a little better. And if you like competing, the nerves, the pressures, the adrenaline pumping, playing in a tournament might get your blood rushing and all you got to lose is, well, a chess game. Maybe play some 30 min rapid live games here on chess.com to get a little more used to non-daily chess, but if I were you and you want to, I wouldn't wait. 

Best of luck!

Really? Someone once told me it was estimated a 200 point difference from chess.com rapid, on average. How many tourneys have you played? I thought you had to play like a bunch of games before actually getting a FIDE rating...

You dunna who your facing here.. you never know if the world champion is playing against you if he uses a hidden alias

These ratings are actually more realistic than fide ratings in my opinion

Chess dotcom recognizes 241 Countries. There are only 193 Countries in the U.N. Notable exceptions here are Zanzibar, Anarctica (not really a Country, either, but there should be a flag, there has to be a bunch of bored scientists down there playing on here), Northern Cyprus, Transnistria, which is a partially recognized breakaway State from Moldova, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Most of the others are small islands. Pitcairn didn't make it.