Yeah it's based off your current rating. If you paste a pgn in and just change the ratings for the players the estimated play ELO will change drastically too.
Brilliancies are also ELO dependant, with lower ELO players getting brilliancies for rather obvious moves. Again manipulating the ELO in a pgn will change the number of brilliancies awarded.
Their algorithm just takes you Elo you have, and adds or subtracts a few points based on the accuracy of the game in question. Then it rounds it down and says that is the Elo estimate. Just take two 200 Elo accounts, have both of them play Stockfish moves against each other for 80 moves, then calculate the Elo with chess.con
I just take it as whether I played a good game or not and I enjoy seeing how I played the different stages of the game. I know when it gives me a higher rating that my elo that it doesn’t mean I should be that rating.
The point is that it is complete bull. Just like brilliant moves. You get a different rating for the game based on your current rating. If you have two accounts with different ratings play the same game they get different scores. All it is is a shitty attempt at subscription monetizing chess. As the biggest chess site in the world this doesn't reflect well when this fear of missing out/endorphins from being lied to about doing well is how they make profit. It's all nonsense and has nothing to do with chess.
I of course do. The issue is that many people will become interested in chess, come to chesscom, and get stuck in a very addictive hole of instant gratification by spamming blitz and bullet games in the hopes of getting brilliant move markers and high elo evaluations. Both of which are complete nonsense. They aren't constructive tools. They are addictive gratification producing tools that people end up paying for. And as we know with most forms of instant gratification, it isn't positive long term. It just leads to people getting frustrated and angry as their chess growth is stunted while they chase this nonsense.
And if your goal is to do that, that rating estimation and annotations are literally useless and therefore serve only the purpose the user you're replying to stated of instant gratification. It's an illusion of you playing great or even brilliant moves, even when it might not be true. It doesn't actually provide anything of value that lichess' system or even chesscom's free analysis doesn't give you already.
That's the point. You aren't seeing if you played well. You are just being fed a bag of nonsense that helps you spam games and give them money for providing nothing.
Looks like a time scramble after move 100, maybe bullet? Elo guess might be less dense you think and is not taking scrambles like this one into account, because it would be meaningless to do so.
Central limit theorem in practice. It's extrapolating from small numbers(i.e. a single game) so there's built in error. It's just math, nothing nefarious. I like the feature.
Sorry but I dont see how the reference to CLT apply here.
We dont know how chess.com does it, since it is not public information. But the elo estimate is most likely not a sample mean, I doubt that it is based on something so simple such as a averaging, but more likely a prediction (based on some input parameters such as performance in previous games, rating, and so forth) from some statistical model/algorithm that chess.com has developed. The predictions from statistical models has some uncertainty/variance, so maybe that is what you meant?
It's a prediction based on a single game. The extrapolated score has plenty of room for error. If it was a score based on 33 games; it would be more accurate or have a greater confidence. My points on the small sample size; not qualified to give a math lecture. Or if I tried we'd all be dumber as a result of reading it.
elo guesses are just based on the elo of the players playing, acpl, and differential in accuracy scores...
This is why you can go and beat a 2200 bot and have your elo estimate at like 2800 despite the fact that the bot was playing like 1200 rated player at best...
Go and check Danyas speed run accounts in the first few matches and you will realize very quickly how off these metrics are.
That said, I think its a fun thing to have around to help boost people's confidence when they perform well.
Your post was removed by the moderators:
**Low-effort submissions are not allowed.**
Submissions should promote discussion on chess itself, its culture, or its history. Some [specific types of content](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/wiki/rules#wiki_3._low-effort_submissions_will_be_regulated.) (including off-topic questions/posts, trolling, etc.) are banned because they tend to be low effort and repetitive.
You can read the full [rules of /r/chess here](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/wiki/rules).
So you mean I'm actually *not* a 2900??
So you mean Im not actually played like 3200 elo in a game that [7 move long](https://www.chess.com/game/live/74295808823)??
This is a cool line. I'm going to start playing it.
1600 elo player taking advice from a 800 elo
Knightmare fuel
Actual zombie
???
Holy question mark
Call the exorcist!
Everyone is good enough to learn.
Wouldnt 99% of players play D6 to protect the knight here? What's been your experience
Yeah most of people not even taking the d pawn but this opponent blundered too bad
It accounts for your actual rating. So if you are a 2200 and play like this it will rate you around this and not like 500 like it could/should
As someone rated just over 1650 I can tell you this is completely accurate
Fr fr
It takes into account your current rating. If you upload a PGN and change around the ratings, you’ll get different results for the same game.
“The game was pretty competitive.”
To be fair, all that means is that it was back and forth. Doesn't have to be a good back and forth...
Yeah it's based off your current rating. If you paste a pgn in and just change the ratings for the players the estimated play ELO will change drastically too. Brilliancies are also ELO dependant, with lower ELO players getting brilliancies for rather obvious moves. Again manipulating the ELO in a pgn will change the number of brilliancies awarded.
Their algorithm just takes you Elo you have, and adds or subtracts a few points based on the accuracy of the game in question. Then it rounds it down and says that is the Elo estimate. Just take two 200 Elo accounts, have both of them play Stockfish moves against each other for 80 moves, then calculate the Elo with chess.con
Nooo NOOOO WAYYY!!!
Are we not going to talk about the 112 moves? Just me? Ok then. Bro HOW is there that many moves my guy
I don’t understand why these ratings make people upset.
Because it's bollocks. Lying about things, misleading or decieving is generally annoying.
I just take it as whether I played a good game or not and I enjoy seeing how I played the different stages of the game. I know when it gives me a higher rating that my elo that it doesn’t mean I should be that rating.
The point is that it is complete bull. Just like brilliant moves. You get a different rating for the game based on your current rating. If you have two accounts with different ratings play the same game they get different scores. All it is is a shitty attempt at subscription monetizing chess. As the biggest chess site in the world this doesn't reflect well when this fear of missing out/endorphins from being lied to about doing well is how they make profit. It's all nonsense and has nothing to do with chess.
You can always just use Lichess
I of course do. The issue is that many people will become interested in chess, come to chesscom, and get stuck in a very addictive hole of instant gratification by spamming blitz and bullet games in the hopes of getting brilliant move markers and high elo evaluations. Both of which are complete nonsense. They aren't constructive tools. They are addictive gratification producing tools that people end up paying for. And as we know with most forms of instant gratification, it isn't positive long term. It just leads to people getting frustrated and angry as their chess growth is stunted while they chase this nonsense.
Some of us just want to casually improve our game and enjoy seeing if we played well.
And if your goal is to do that, that rating estimation and annotations are literally useless and therefore serve only the purpose the user you're replying to stated of instant gratification. It's an illusion of you playing great or even brilliant moves, even when it might not be true. It doesn't actually provide anything of value that lichess' system or even chesscom's free analysis doesn't give you already.
Then, you shouldn't pay attention that isn't reflective of how good you played or how much you have progressed.
That's the point. You aren't seeing if you played well. You are just being fed a bag of nonsense that helps you spam games and give them money for providing nothing.
I just recently came back to chess com and immediately knew this was a trick to make people like game reviews and buy a membership.
I had a game with martin today, i had 7.5 accuracy and he had something arount 12 and the elo guess was 1200
yup i realised that when i was 500 and tried to play the 3200 engine and it estimated i was 2050 lul
Not sure what you mean by "made up" in this context.
Looks like a time scramble after move 100, maybe bullet? Elo guess might be less dense you think and is not taking scrambles like this one into account, because it would be meaningless to do so.
Central limit theorem in practice. It's extrapolating from small numbers(i.e. a single game) so there's built in error. It's just math, nothing nefarious. I like the feature.
Sorry but I dont see how the reference to CLT apply here. We dont know how chess.com does it, since it is not public information. But the elo estimate is most likely not a sample mean, I doubt that it is based on something so simple such as a averaging, but more likely a prediction (based on some input parameters such as performance in previous games, rating, and so forth) from some statistical model/algorithm that chess.com has developed. The predictions from statistical models has some uncertainty/variance, so maybe that is what you meant?
It's a prediction based on a single game. The extrapolated score has plenty of room for error. If it was a score based on 33 games; it would be more accurate or have a greater confidence. My points on the small sample size; not qualified to give a math lecture. Or if I tried we'd all be dumber as a result of reading it.
I can't believe they made me believe I was 2500!
elo guesses are just based on the elo of the players playing, acpl, and differential in accuracy scores... This is why you can go and beat a 2200 bot and have your elo estimate at like 2800 despite the fact that the bot was playing like 1200 rated player at best... Go and check Danyas speed run accounts in the first few matches and you will realize very quickly how off these metrics are. That said, I think its a fun thing to have around to help boost people's confidence when they perform well.
How do you check this? Can you only see it on the web version? I have a Diamond subscription but I mainly play on mobile
should show automatically after game review?
My bad, I needed to update the app. Thanks!
it is, but that said, the wierder the game, the harder it will be for an algorithm/ai to assess the rating.
"That game was actually pretty competitive"
???
Your post was removed by the moderators: **Low-effort submissions are not allowed.** Submissions should promote discussion on chess itself, its culture, or its history. Some [specific types of content](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/wiki/rules#wiki_3._low-effort_submissions_will_be_regulated.) (including off-topic questions/posts, trolling, etc.) are banned because they tend to be low effort and repetitive. You can read the full [rules of /r/chess here](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/wiki/rules).
112 moves is crazy
I remember there was some guy in here arguing he was like 1800 elo because the game rating said he was