My Rating System

This is my first blog post, and I hope you like it.

Notes

• This is not a rating system like Elo or Glicko that is based on wins and losses in games. In fact, I don't think any rating system like this has been made. This is based on a player's greatest achievements.
• I am NOT trying to convince people that Kasparov is better than Carlsen. That was partially where I came up with the idea of this system, but I am NOT trying to force me opinion on you.

The Equation

This equation factors in 3 things:

1. Peak Rating (Pr)
2. Peak Rating Age (a)
3. Championships (c)

Here it is
(Pr/a)*c

For example, to find Magnus Carlsen's rating, we take his peak rating (2882), divide it by his age when he achieved it (23), and multiply it by the World Championships he's won (5). Therefore, he is rated approximately 626.52.

Professional Chess League

In the late 1900s, a lot of players broke off from FIDE and formed the PCA. The PCA also hosted world championships. Now, for this, I had three options:

1. Count World Championships during the period that PCA existed as half a world championship. I went with this originally.
2. Count PCA World Championships as zero. That, however, would be too unfair to these champions.
3. Count World Championships during the period that PCA existed as a full championship. That was my final decision, since the PCA and FIDE world championships didn't happen in the same years.

Therefore, Garry Kasparov is rated about 475.17. His rating actually ends with an infinite number of sixes.

Ranking Table

Using information from Wikipedia and Google's Math Solver, I have determined the ratings of the following great players:

Carlsen

I wasn't surprised that he was higher rated than Kasparov, but I was surprised that the gap was about 150 points.

Kasparov

I knew that since his peak rating was lower and achieved at a higher age, that would give him a disadvantage over Carlsen, but I thought that the World Championships won would make up for it.

Karpov

I am honestly surprised the gap between these solar system-renowned players has been 150-200 points. I thought that the least rating would only be about 200 points below the highest.

Fischer

I was surprised he was lower than Karpov. I did not realized he and Magnus would be so far apart! 550 rating points! He's still a great player though and could probably draw against any of these players.

Variations of This Method

As you may have noticed, c = championships, not World Championships. That is because there are Women, Junior, Girl, other time controls, national, and more types of championships. So, you can calculate a player's Open Rating, Women Rating, Junior Rating, National Rating, or any other type.

Note: For national ratings, use the peak national rating, not the peak FIDE rating.

The Problem

You may have already realized this: you can't give Nakamura or Erigaisi or Abusatrov an Open Rating even though they are in the Top 10. This rating factors in World Championships, and very few top players have won one. Therefore, their rating would be zero. I can just change the equation so that c = 1 for these players, but that is unfair to those who have won one World Championship already. Therefore, I decided to make c equal to 0.5.

Discussion Starters for the Forums

• Your own rating systems based on a player's achievements.
• Your own versions of this.
  • How to improve this.
    • How to solve the problem I mentioned.
    • Other problems
• What to name this rating system
• Other players I should give the ratings for.

I will make sure to read the forums to see others' recommendations. I will choose 3 original equations based on players' achievements to be featured here, as well as most improvements to my system.

ProHerobrineHacker33's Idea

Including only the World Championship would be unfair. There are many other major tournaments that should be factored in. While they won't add to c more than 0.9, it will still add to the ratings. Here is a table with all the major tournaments he wants to include.

There were a few Rapid and Blitz tournaments, but we aren't done with the Classical tournaments yet, so I won't include them.

My Take

I love the idea. I am definitely adding it to the system. I will also rename c. Since it's no longer "Championships;" it's "Tournaments," it will be called t. There are a few more tournaments I can think of, and I will talk to him about adding them. Then we can do Blitz and Rapid.

I hope you enjoyed!

If you liked this post, be sure to read my other ones and give this a like.