Follow chess. If you have your own site or blog, we are happy to offer you use of the Top 10 Players banner.

This banner is updated automatically. That is, every time there is a change to the Top 10 on our web page, your Top 10 banner is updated simultaneously.

We would like to extend our special thanks to Hans Arild Runde for his ground-breaking idea of calculating and regularly updating the live chess ratings of elite players, to Dr Christopher Wright for his contribution to the all-important early development of this site and thanks to Mark Crowther at TWIC for sharing PGN of games that are difficult to get from official websites.

We would like to thank James Satrapa for his help in maintaining and improving this website, and for researching the information used in the Highest Ever Live Ratings banner.

We would also like to thank Annie Kappel for her help in improving text and layout. However, if both players face each other in a match of multiple games, the player with the higher rating probably wins most of the games.

Another feature of this system is that the rating gap between the players dictates how many points they can win or lose.

Since a much higher rated player is expected to win, they do not receive a lot of points for a victory against a player rated much lower.

Their opponent also does not lose a significant amount of points for the defeat. In turn, when the lower-rated player wins, this achievement is considered much more significant, and that player's reward is more points added to their rating.

The higher-rated player, though, is penalized accordingly. When a player's actual tournament scores exceed their expected scores, the Elo system takes this as evidence that player's rating is too low, and needs to be adjusted upward.

Similarly, when a player's actual tournament scores fall short of their expected scores, that player's rating is adjusted downward.

Elo's original suggestion, which is still widely used, was a simple linear adjustment proportional to the amount by which a player overperformed or underperformed their expected score.

The formula for updating that player's rating is. This update can be performed after each game or each tournament, or after any suitable rating period.

An example may help to clarify. Suppose Player A has a rating of and plays in a five-round tournament. He loses to a player rated , draws with a player rated , defeats a player rated , defeats a player rated , and loses to a player rated The expected score, calculated according to the formula above, was 0.

Note that while two wins, two losses, and one draw may seem like a par score, it is worse than expected for Player A because their opponents were lower rated on average.

Therefore, Player A is slightly penalized. New players are assigned provisional ratings, which are adjusted more drastically than established ratings.

The principles used in these rating systems can be used for rating other competitions—for instance, international football matches. See Go rating with Elo for more.

The first mathematical concern addressed by the USCF was the use of the normal distribution. They found that this did not accurately represent the actual results achieved, particularly by the lower rated players.

Instead they switched to a logistic distribution model, which the USCF found provided a better fit for the actual results achieved.

The second major concern is the correct "K-factor" used. If the K-factor coefficient is set too large, there will be too much sensitivity to just a few, recent events, in terms of a large number of points exchanged in each game.

And if the K-value is too low, the sensitivity will be minimal, and the system will not respond quickly enough to changes in a player's actual level of performance.

Elo's original K-factor estimation was made without the benefit of huge databases and statistical evidence. Sonas indicates that a K-factor of 24 for players rated above may be more accurate both as a predictive tool of future performance, and also more sensitive to performance.

Certain Internet chess sites seem to avoid a three-level K-factor staggering based on rating range. The USCF which makes use of a logistic distribution as opposed to a normal distribution formerly staggered the K-factor according to three main rating ranges of:.

Currently, the USCF uses a formula that calculates the K-factor based on factors including the number of games played and the player's rating.

The K-factor is also reduced for high rated players if the event has shorter time controls. FIDE uses the following ranges: [20].

FIDE used the following ranges before July [21]. The gradation of the K-factor reduces ratings changes at the top end of the rating spectrum, reducing the possibility for rapid ratings inflation or deflation for those with a low K-factor.

This might in theory apply equally to an online chess site or over-the-board players, since it is more difficult for players to get much higher ratings when their K-factor is reduced.

In some cases the rating system can discourage game activity for players who wish to protect their rating.

Beyond the chess world, concerns over players avoiding competitive play to protect their ratings caused Wizards of the Coast to abandon the Elo system for Magic: the Gathering tournaments in favour of a system of their own devising called "Planeswalker Points".

A more subtle issue is related to pairing. When players can choose their own opponents, they can choose opponents with minimal risk of losing, and maximum reward for winning.

In the category of choosing overrated opponents, new entrants to the rating system who have played fewer than 50 games are in theory a convenient target as they may be overrated in their provisional rating.

The ICC compensates for this issue by assigning a lower K-factor to the established player if they do win against a new rating entrant.

The K-factor is actually a function of the number of rated games played by the new entrant. Therefore, Elo ratings online still provide a useful mechanism for providing a rating based on the opponent's rating.

Its overall credibility, however, needs to be seen in the context of at least the above two major issues described — engine abuse, and selective pairing of opponents.

How do we translate between Elo and material odds? The first thing to realize is that the number of Elo points equivalent to one pawn varies with the strength of the players.

Some estimates by GM Larry Kaufman are given in the "Rating equivalent" section of the article linked above. More data points are given by matches played with material odds or draw odds between two human players or between a human and a computer, some of which are discussed at the end of the "History" section.

I fitted a curve as best as I could and below is a graph of the result. The calculator applies this curve to display material odds when given two Elo ratings.

Und was wären die nächsten Schritte um mich endlich mal wieder zu verbessern? Weitere Antworten zeigen. Was möchtest Du wissen?

Deine Frage stellen. Treten mehrere Spieler gegeneinander an, so lässt sich aus den Elo-Zahlen der Spieler die erwartete Punktezahl der jeweiligen Spieler bestimmen.

Das System ist so konstruiert, dass Elo-Rating-Punkte unter den beteiligten Spielern umverteilt werden. Bei einer Begegnung zweier Spieler gibt es für einen Sieg einen, für ein Unentschieden einen halben und für eine Niederlage keinen Punkt.

Die erwartete Punktezahl ist somit die Wahrscheinlichkeit , dass der Spieler gewinnt, plus die halbe Wahrscheinlichkeit für ein Remis. Dieser Erwartungswert wird aus dem Rating wie folgt berechnet:.

Hierbei gilt stets [Anm. Die in der Formel enthaltene Zahl wurde von Arpad Elo so gewählt, dass die Elo-Zahlen mit den Wertungszahlen des früher verwendeten Rating-Systems von Kenneth Harkness möglichst gut kompatibel sind.

Tatsächlich kann man das Harkness-Modell als eine stückweise lineare Approximation an das Elo-Modell auffassen. Man kann natürlich eine Verteilung konstruieren, sodass genau diese Eigenschaft erfüllt ist, es gibt aber keine plausible Erklärung dafür, weshalb die Spielstärken diesem Zufallsmechanismus folgen sollten.

Es ist daher sinnvoller, die Multiplikativität als Ausgangspunkt der Modellierung anzusetzen und auf eine Verteilungsannahme zu verzichten.

Die Erwartungswerte sind multiplikativ. Dies kann man leicht nachrechnen. Die Multiplikativität ist aber keine Konsequenz aus einer Normalverteilung — man liest zwar oft, dass das Elo-Modell von einer Normalverteilung ausgeht, doch genügt diese Annahme nur in sehr grober Näherung der Forderung nach Multiplikativität, sodass die Forderung nach Multiplikativität den besseren Ausgangspunkt für die Entwicklung des Modells darstellt — insbesondere für die Kalkulation der Spielstärken von Spielern früherer Epochen.

Ein Unterschied von einer Klasse bedeutete, dass der bessere Spieler als Ergebnis einer Partie 0,75 Punkte erwarten darf.

Main article: Elo rating system. Main article: Glicko rating system. Main article: Deutsche Wertungszahl. Main article: Chessmetrics. Main article: Universal Rating System.

Saint Louis Chess Club. January 25, Retrieved 31 August Archived from the original on June 11, Archived from the original on November 15,