Eli,

You might also request that there be a response filter.  IE. "only members

with a rating of 1600+ may post in this forum", or "men only", "women

only", "IQ of 130+ only", "adults only","small fury animals only", etc.

that would be perfect.

 smart idea..

would my goldfish too be eligable for the forum??

Really, corr rating is the only one that would truly make sense to have. That's the one that says the most of your *understanding* of chess, not how good you are at calculation or time management.

Mean is really the worst one, in particular for players with a huge difference between ratings. I have a difference of 800 points between quick and corr!

However, I would certainly encourage caution here. Rating is obviously pointless in non-analysis topics and if seeing the number make someones opinions generally less credible something have gone very wrong. It is, however, a feature I have waited for eagerly.

Somebody puts a lot of stock in chess.com ratings. Personally, I'd 100x rather rely on my own judgment than on some number.

Yeah I totally agree ... it annoys me to no end when people analyzing a game post their 'winning variation' when in reality they're missing mate in one :D.  ... actually last time that happened it was a 2100 player commenting :P.

 but then wouldn't all the genius adult hermaphrodite small fury animals of the chess.com community be confused on where they could or could not post?

but seriously folks...  if someone has a good thought or suggestion does it matter what their rating is?  even Forest Gump said something smart every once in a while.  but my rating is like 1100, so what do I know?

     back to Duke-

     you know what "genius adult hermaphrodite small fury animals" are

I think you can have good ideas and a bad rating. The opposite is true too

Bad or good listen to advice people give you.

Despite lower rated players perhaps giving good advice it's fair to say that in general their advice will not be as good as higher rated players.  This doesn't necesarily make it invalid though, a lot of people want advice that they can relate to, not some theories by masters that they can only pretend to relate to.  What use is great advice if it's in a language that you don't understand?

Any advice given by other players should be taken into consideration. If you doubt an advice given by a player because of his or her rating, review the advice yourself. If you cannot find problems then use the advice in a chess game to see if it gives any. If then you still cannot find any problems then it's a good advice. If you can find a problem then tell the person who gave the advice to you so he/she learns something.

All people who give advice are people who are trying to help you, so if you just ignore them because their rating is 200 points lower than the advice given to you by the poster below him then you don't deserve to be adviced.

 Heck ya

I like this idea. It will be very useful in things like Vote Chess.

That's what happens in most crappy teams LOL.

If you're not a FIDE Candidate Master (CM = FIDE 2200, which is USCF 2100 ["Expert Class"] or ECF 162), I don't care what your chess.com rating is; I will be very wary of any advice you give.

Be wary of chess.com ratings. It means nothing if not backed up by actual over-the-board or correspondence competition (e.g. ICCF).

FIDE 2200 is more usually compared to USCF 2300 (I can't find the more precise formulas right now).

By being a member of Chess.com the understanding is that you do have a forum to comment  write and express on Chess and issues regarding Chess .If a reader isn't in agreement with what i've writen or does'nt care for its content than that's their choice, but regardless if your rating is 2799 or 99 this site is for everyone who has an interest in the game of Chess and seeks to exercise that interest.