Is the rating system used here accurate? [Answered]

Normally my rating is around 1200 when I play blitz games on ICC. I play standard here and my rating has shot up to 1810 after about forty games. I did win most of the games but I still feel like that is a little high of a rating for me. I have never played tournament and I am merely a student of the game, completely undeserving of a rating this high. This isn’t one of those circumstances where my rating just suddenly one day was really high, so I dont think its a bug of any kind. It happened gradually as I beat people with higher and higher ratings. Now, maybe its just that Im taking my time now with standard games and am able to think better with more time. I would have stopped there, but I also couldn’t help but notice the frequency of players with 1600–1800 ratings was higher than I usually see. The majority, it seems, of players on chesspark have ratings this high. This simply cannot be true. You have to be a class A amature to achieve ratings like this. Im just a class A nobody. Please explain? Thanks

It doesn’t even matter who you are and how you play. The game just requires the players to play well and achieve good ratings. This is simply stated in the game’s guidelines.

Also, when you have achieved good scores, you need to be responsible for that and it supports you to play much better over and over again.

How can the ratings be accurate when people loose due to lag, or disconnection?

It is hard to say if the ratings attained is an accurate reflection of form. Until issues like lag are resolved, an accurate depiction of form will lack credability, in my opinion.

yes, i agree that lag is an issue here, but even subtracting that out of the equation, has anyone else noticed their rating here is way higher than anywhere else? I play people who are rated 1600+ and they barely know how to sacrifice yet. They fall for the most simple traps and blunder three or four times a game. If anyone here was to go onto the internet chess club and play a 1600 you would soon be steamrolled and hung out to dry, clawing day to day for a rating that just clears 1200. I think what we have here is a brilliant way to attract chess players by suggesting with inflated ratings that they are better players than they really are. My first instinct is to believe that I am an 1800 because Ive worked hard and studied long and I deserve to be an 1800. So I have a tendancy to accept that my rating would be so high, but upon further inspection I must face reality, since the nature of reality is not to take the shape of what I see fit, but to take the shape of natural law and wait for me to come under the subjection of itself. My only alternative is to lie to myself and believe I’m an 1800. And maybe thats why I play chess at this site now more than any other.

Well, I just want to say something about this topic.I play a lot on Playchess.com and I have more then 1000 played games in two categories: Standard and Blitz, but my elo is not much different then this one on Chesspark.On Playchess my best Standard elo was 1723 and Blitz elo was 1535, and the number of players is enormous

(up to 6000 at the same time sometimes)and concurrence is

brutal.The initial elo depend on opponent strenght, so, of course, if you beat stronger player the elo will be higher. As you play on, the elo becomes more realistic.

the ratings are not accurate – just check the robot players out! solution: play the robots in a face to face tournament, and recallibrate their grades – we are invited to play these robots when we start: beacause they are weak, we end up with infalted scores.

their later downward adjustments if we beat them are relative to an inflated score

hence we are all systematically over-rated

everything else about this site is truly excellent

The rating system here is ridiculous. I’ve played rated chess online for years and the highest rating I’ve been is about 1600. Here my rating is approaching 1900!! Players (not bots) I’ve played here with a 1500–1700 rating play like a 1300 strength.

Perhaps a new player should start at 1000. I think the bots are also a problem. As well, sound would be a good thing. Nothing too annoying (yahoo sounds are just – stupid)just a simple “beep” and “check” “checkmate” etc.

well, it doesnt matter. if you are a good player, like me, you’ll do well even if the ratings are incorrect. anyway, you can check yourself

I think the ratings here are perhaps a bit high. Perhaps 200 points. I think when you first log on you dont realize your playing a computer. Myself after a few games it was clear to me. After which I removed the computers. It takes a while to become used to everything here. I think the younger players like my son who is 13 play robots only and inflate their ratings. Rule of thumb with me now is don“t believe their rating to be true, this works for me perhaps because a person with a higher rating no longer intimidates me.

My rating is higher here than at ICC, at least for now. Perhaps ICC uses a different formula than ChessPark. If the formulas are the same, time will probably balance it out.

I would like to add that none of this really matters. The real purpose of ratings is so that you can play other players that are of a similar skill level. The fun is trying to climb as high as you can. The competition is great and that is what we are here for, to play the best game in the world with well matched opponents. If there is an international standard and ChessPark is using their own, I’m guessing they would have to reset everyone’s rating to switch. Who cares? Just enjoy.

You can inflate your rating by playing the bots but why? Once you rejoin the real world you will get a reality check.

The system is good but there is no good players so those who are only little better then others have got higher rank than thay ever have.

It’s funny but it’s true. The rating system here is very similar to rating system on others servers, so it’s only explenation.

PS.: Sorry for my english. It’s not my natural language

The ratings here are high but as others have said, it’s because of the pool of players and bots. My guess is that the ratings are exaggerated by between 300 and 400 (which is a HUGE amount when you think about it).

One bit of evidence to back this up is Attila Turzo’s rating. His FIDE rating is 2314 and his current here is 2648.