What is a player's true chess rating?

Sort:
Jadulla

Okay, so I've played around 3-400 blitz games (had never played chess), and have finally reached a blitz rating of 1000. You know, they say that 1200 is the average FIDE rating, so have I just worked my ass off to get 200 below average? What kind of genius is this average chess player? I've even heard someone say that 1200 is a skilled beginner. 

I've started playing a bit online chess, and there my rating is 1400 and increasing. I'm just wondering what you consider a good blitz rating compared to online chess rating. What is a player's true chess rating?

And don't look at the ratings on this account, it's just my little privacy account.

Jadulla

Was that really an answer to my question

rtr1129

After a handful of games, especially hundreds, a player's rating is always accurate. You are what you are.

kleelof
kaynight wrote:

Rt: That's a song. No?

I think it was a misquote from this guy:

DrCheckevertim

Blitz ratings are generally deflated, that means they tend to be lower than USCF/FIDE ratings. Online ratings are the opposite. They are inflated, which means your "online" rating will likely be higher than a real USCF/FIDE rating.

 

Your USCF/FIDE is probably somewhere around 1200.

 

It takes a lot of work, study, and play to get good at chess... for sure.

 

Just so you know, the average "chess player" (not really) who knows how the pieces move and plays twice a year with uncle Bob, is typically something like 800-1000 (USCF/FIDE). The average tournament player is somewhere around 1400-1500 (USCF). That means half the tournament players are lower than that.

learning2mate

I don't really believe in online ratings here, they are wildly different and even more so than offline ratings from federations. As for getting better, besides playing blitz what do you do to learn chess?

kleelof

I don't believe in ratings either. But I DO believe in the Easter Bunny. I hope next year he brings me a GM title. (in chocolate, of course)

nobodyreally

Some decades ago there were no Fide ratings below 2200. If you were on 2205 and lost a game, you simply dropped of the list. Into oblivion.

Good old times.

nobodyreally

Or play and hate the game, if that's your thing.

nobodyreally
Jadulla wrote:

What is a player's true chess rating?

What is true chess?

Jadulla
learning2mate wrote:

I don't really believe in online ratings here, they are wildly different and even more so than offline ratings from federations. As for getting better, besides playing blitz what do you do to learn chess?

I use Chess Mentor and Tactics Trainer, and play some with friends. I just bought a book also, and I'm going to join the local chess club after the vacation.

Jadulla
DrCheckevertim wrote:

[snip]

Thanks. Exactly the answer I wanted

nobodyreally
Jadulla wrote:
DrCheckevertim wrote:

[snip]

Thanks. Exactly the answer I wanted

Darn, he got his answer. That's a first.

Jadulla
nobodyreally wrote:
Jadulla wrote:

What is a player's true chess rating?

What is true chess?

Dunno, go ask Sokrates

Jadulla
nobodyreally wrote:
Jadulla wrote:
DrCheckevertim wrote:

[snip]

Thanks. Exactly the answer I wanted

Darn, he got his answer. That's a first.

You jelly?

nobodyreally
Jadulla wrote:

Dunno, go ask Sokrates

Who is Sokrates?

learning2mate

I'm not confident that an online rating translates well offline. There may be a loose correlation but offline in a rated tournament is completely different than sitting at home playing some blitz games online.

petrchpetr

For me the true rating is the FIDE rating. The reason why is that you have to beat skilled chess players from all around the world under "fair" conditions in order to achieve that. 

About the genius and average player - if you were a club member and there was some kind of coaching program there, you would be much better prepared comparing to just playing games online. You would know some openings, you would know some tactics, you would know how to make some plan, you would know the basic endgame rules, you would analyze your games regularly, you would face strong players, so you would know their tricks. Of course, this would make a huge difference. 

petrchpetr

The_Con_Artist, I agree and disagree. Rating is a bit of science. At least in the sense that the formula is designed so there is a known probability of winning/loosing based on your rating. For example the player who is 200 higher should score 76% of time, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system.

As it is just a probability, it can happen that 2000 player beets 2100 player 10 times in a row. It is very unlikely that 1500 player beets 2500 player 10 times in a row, but still there is a very small chance. 

I agree that ratings are overrated, but it is also a good indicator of your personal progress. If your rating goes up, your training plan seems to be good. Bullet and standard ratings are not very comparable, still 2000+ standard chess players tend to be good in blitz and bullet too. 

kleelof

Ratings are only to determine your place in heaven.

Those without ratings are advised to wear shorts and t-shirts to the afterlife.Laughing