My experience is that midrange ratings here are USCF + 300. For the higher end, I would say it's more like + 200 (look at my own for an example).
from Ratings Elo or USCF thread. Incidentally, FIDE and USCF calculate their ratings using the Elo system whereas I believe that chess.com uses Glicko.
So you're basing your study plan on a mysterious number so that you can filter out material that's correct for your level?
I don't see why you need a number to do that. If you seem to average 1100-1200 on live chess, chances are you can't be "better" than 1200 OTB standard, be it FIDE USCF or ELO. (the opposite is more likely, your OTB playing strength can be much worse!).
Pursue material suitable for 1000-1200 and if you find it too rudimentary, move to books recommended for the next rating class. Rinse and repeat.
It isn't too hard. I'm 1700 USCF and when I pick up "Chess for dummies" at a bookstore I put it down after 5-15 seconds of skimming. Likewise, I do the same when I pick up a Dvoretsky book where within 20 seconds I soil my pants and wonder if switching to Scrabble might be more fun. IT doesn't take too long to figure out what's over your head and what isn't.
I don't see a phenomenal jump in the efficiency of your study-time by hunting down this mythical number and THEN filtering the quality of material flowing into your cranium ... rather, I see that time better spent studying ... period! Or better yet, taking a closer look at your lost games and having a strong-er player go over them with you.
if you can beat me with white and black a couple of times, then you are at least around 1350 elo :)
My CFC rating used to about 1700. On here, my (blitz) rating fluctuates anywhere between 1600 and 1800 (admittedly on the lower end right now).
@ Shivsky, thanks for your input and while I can't help but agree with your sentiments I do think there is some value to knowing how one ranks up with other players and because I am pursuing a stronger game I can't help but look to others for suggestions. So yes I could figure out for myself what is and isn't beneficial for me to learn - whether it's too elementary or over my head, when starting out a study plan I'd rather take a tried and true(r) approach rather than follow my own unorganized study plan. This helps me personally with staying on track rather than getting distracted and jumping from study topic to study topic and I can remain focused. All in all, I'm not one to conform to trodding the beaten path, but at the same time I want to avoid going it freestyle on my own, and just wanted to better understand my skill level so I can plot my study accordingly. That said, I'm not trying to "filter out" anything based on the number, but I'm trying to "filter out" the things based on what the number represents. I am not following my number blindly, I know to take statistics with a grain of salt. Knowing where one stands against others can not be ignored when competing with others.
My best example of all of this would be if I asked members here on the forum what they recommend I study, the first question they'd ask, as information they'd need to base their answer on, would likely be my rating.
Fair enough ... if it means a lot to know what your supposed OTB federation rating strength might be, a lot of the posters have already hinted at how inflated online chess ratings might be.
I've said before, if your chess.com live ratings for "slow time control" games (over 30 minutes on the average) are 1100-1200 and you've played a sufficiently LARGE number of games to ensure that this number indeed follows your actual playing strength, you cannot possibly be higher than that at OTB tournament play as of this moment.
As an alternative, try Claus Jensen's Chess Rating test #2, NM Dan Heisman's Tactics Quiz Novice Nook. As far as books go, there's the Novice Test in Danny Kopec's Test, Evaluate and Improve your Chess and the very comprehensive Igor Khelmnitsky Chess Rating Exam if you want to get a good approximation without actually playing a Federation rated tournament game. (all links / books easily googled)
The other way out is for you to post one of your losses in this thread and you'll find most of the decent folk here who play rated tournaments could size you up rather quickly.
Good luck with your search.
FIDE tournements is 2 hours each player each game. There is alot of difference between both 5 mins and 3 days. You cant find your elo without playing in a elo rated tournement. Play and find out.
No, a sticky is a technical term referring to a forum topic which is always at the top, listed before even the most recent topic.
I am playing in chess.com since December, 2010 and have played more than 200 games against different players. I want to know my rating because I am still unrated. For this I may please be guided what steps I have to take. Will it be possible to know my rating without being a member? If yes, I may please be intimated how and if no, I want to know how I can get the membership?
I am playing in chess.com since December, 2010 and have played more than 200 games against different players. I want to know my rating because I am still unrated. For this I may please be guided what steps I have to take. Will it be possible to know my rating without being a member? If yes, I may please be intimated how and if no, I want to know how I can get the membership?
Select "rated" rather than "unrated" from the drop down menu when you start a new game. You don't need to become a premium member.
My rating on chess.com seems to be a lot worse than my actual rating since sometimes I can't work out my stupid mouse, and my hands are much more efficient than my Internet connection.
I think numbers are inflated here just because of the fact it is the internet and there will always be ways to cheat using computers or help from friends ect.
But, in my head, if you play completely legit, like we all should and do, and you can keep up with other high level players and cheaters, ect, then I dont see this rating system being too different then others, especially at higher levels.
My online rating ils a little better than my real rating (1350 on chess.com and 1280 my real rating.
Chess.com ratings are WAY DEFLATED and it is a BIG DEAL.
First of all, let's not pretend chess players don't care about ratings. We do.
For most of us, the "Holy Grail" is 2200. If you can hit that, you become a "Chess Master". I'm a USCF 1900+, so for me, that is a goal that somehow seems obtainable. But here in Chess.com land, GMs are rated 2300. So what freeking chance do I have?
Look, it's not that hard. You could easily pump up folks ratings by making a minor change to the program that calculates ratings. Get folks ratings in line with their FIDE & USCF ratings. We care. We want 2200 to be obtainable. Why do you think we play chess?
Howwwler
I agree with howler that the ratings are very poor on chess.com in comparison because on chess.com I am apparently around 1400 whereas in real life I can hold a 2100 to an extremely close game
something aroung 1400 here, 1820 real-elo...
1801 USCF, live blitz/bullet chess.com 1600ish, live standard high 1600s-low 1700s, online 1830, tactics 1920.
It's all over the place. I have one friend rated over 2000 on bullet chess.com who has never reached 1800 OTB, while another friend of mine is 1100 bullet on chess.com and is nearly 1900 OTB.
FIDE rating 1786 May 2015 down from 1810 April 2015 (one bad tournament). Chess.com ratings as of today 10/05/2015 are: bullet 1147, blitz 1639, standard 1692, online 2078. Age is a factor: I am 72. So is number of opponents: if I am playing online a 3-day game against an opponent with 50-100 simultaneous games I have a significant advantage. He or she is effectively giving a correspondence simultaneous display against 50-100 opponents.
Part of the problem of growing older is that one's brain is less flexible and tires more easily. This is something I have to manage. Not rocket science really: my weaknesses are for me to know and my opponents to find out.
dpnorman: I hear what you say. I use chess.com as a games-playing training tool and my time limits are always 2|1 bullet, 10|0 blitz and 15|10 standard. I chose these because I can play in tournaments with them from time to time.
Tom_Hindle and others: My impression is that players on chess.com are stronger, rating for rating, than on for example the Free Internet Chess Server (FICS). This is probably because here we start off at 1200, on FICS and other sites we start off at 1500. But there is no equivalent to the tournament conditions that FIDE games are played on. For example I travel to play a chess game that will last several hours, then I travel back. The longest I play here is 15|10 because I can't guarantee freedom from interruptions domestic duties etc for any longer. In my early days on FICS I liked 15|0 because I could not guarantee a reliable Internet connection. It is always annoying to lose by default but better when you have invested 30 minutes (max) than longer.
In France they give you a temporary grade (National grade) to start you off, and you get your FIDE grade after you have played (I think)10 games against players with FIDE ratings. Ratings against Nationally-graded players don't count. So my rating went down with a bump when I finally got my FIDE grade two or three years ago: my earlier wins against Nationally-graded players no longer counted.
Hi all, I have been playing chess on chess.com for a while, and really if I didn't have online chess I wouldn't be able to play at all (besides myself, which, however helpful it may be isn't exactly fun or conducive to sanity)
Meaning I have no way of finding out my "real" rating. I was wondering if any of you out there who have a ELO or FIDE rating plus a rating on chess.com (after a decent amount of games) could tell me how much difference there is in the numbers. I want to start studying chess and I feel it would be best to have an idea of my actual rating before I get too serious about it so as to know what level I am and thus study what is suggested for my skill level.
I have heard that chess.com ratings are somewhat inflated compared to ELO and ELO to FIDE so I'd like to know a ballpark +/- for my chess.com rating when I am trying to know my real skill level.
Currently I am rated around 1150-1200 on chess.com, which seems really weak for me even though my actual rating is likely even lower =(. I feel much better than this and I think my endgame is my strong-point and I have a firm grasp on middle-game tactics, and have noticed a lot of my losses can be attributed to openings blunders or just overall lack of opening knowledge so I've begun to study openings, which I know most don't recommend for "beginners" which I am not, and have been playing chess since I was 5, but I realize I'm not a very strong player and I am dead-set on improving. So I need to have an accurate idea of my rating so I can both study accordingly and see results which is key to improvement in anything.
Thanks in advance.