Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

3 reasons Why "Online Chess" ratings deserves no repsect


  • 6 months ago · Quote · #501

    TitanCG

    No offense taken. I don't think it's boring. I just end up playing impulsively after a while.

  • 5 months ago · Quote · #502

    badger_song

    I must have missed something,the phrasing of this thread title is rather odd.The word,respect, is an emotionally loaded,and rather subjective term;an online rating is an objective metric;it strikes me as strange to refer to one,with the other.

  • 5 months ago · Quote · #503

    bean_Fischer

    ThreePawnSac wrote:

    *Please note that I am not saying CC (correspondance chess, AKA "online chess") is a stupid game type and should be ignored. I am merely pointing out my belief that these ratings should not be looked at when considering a player's skill.*

    At my chess club a 1700 was ecstatic to have beaten our local FIDE master. Later I found out this game was a chess.com "online game".  Lets investigate possible reasons why a 1700 may have beaten a FIDE master and why this is not a significant achievement.

    1) Correspondence chess ("Online chess") should have died with the invention of the household chess computer. The incentive to cheat is much higher than any other form of competition and by-far the easiest to get away with. And I know there are a lot more of you out there than you let on.

    The reason why OP started this thread is because he was not satisfied that a 1700 had beaten a FIDE Master and tried to investigate.

    He gave reason #1. cheating. We will go back and discuss his reasons #2 and #3.

    I don't think a 1700 has to cheat to beat a FIDE Master. I wonder why the incentive to be higher. I can say a 1700 can win vs a FIDE Master without cheating. The Master could have blundered his piece.

    The OP needs to show us the game where the 1700 cheated. If he doesn't, reason #1 is way off to be a reason at all.

  • 5 months ago · Quote · #504

    Ziryab

    bean_Fischer wrote:
    ThreePawnSac wrote:

    *Please note that I am not saying CC (correspondance chess, AKA "online chess") is a stupid game type and should be ignored. I am merely pointing out my belief that these ratings should not be looked at when considering a player's skill.*

    At my chess club a 1700 was ecstatic to have beaten our local FIDE master. Later I found out this game was a chess.com "online game".  Lets investigate possible reasons why a 1700 may have beaten a FIDE master and why this is not a significant achievement.

    1) Correspondence chess ("Online chess") should have died with the invention of the household chess computer. The incentive to cheat is much higher than any other form of competition and by-far the easiest to get away with. And I know there are a lot more of you out there than you let on.

    The reason why OP started this thread is because he was not satisfied that a 1700 had beaten a FIDE Master and tried to investigate.

    He gave reason #1. cheating. We will go back and discuss his reasons #2 and #3.

    I don't think a 1700 has to cheat to beat a FIDE Master. I wonder why the incentive to be higher. I can say a 1700 can win vs a FIDE Master without cheating. The Master could have blundered his piece.

    The OP needs to show us the game where the 1700 cheated. If he doesn't, reason #1 is way off to be a reason at all.

    I thought the OP was being sarcastic since he started the thread with a comment about some sort of weight lifting cult: the Rep Sect.

  • 5 months ago · Quote · #505

    Ziryab

    The "reasons" have been refuted. There's nothing left but spelling.

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #506

    Idrinkyourhealth

    nameno1had wrote:
    macer75 wrote:
    ThreePawnSac wrote:

    boo

    u mean "bump"?

    lol...nothing like self promotion...

    KA-BOOOOM, more repsect for me

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #507

    Idrinkyourhealth

    Gil-Gandel wrote:

     

    (I don't use my rating to gain respect)

    I should hope you didn't.

    it's repsect*

    REPSECT, ********* ****** !!!!!

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #508

    Ziryab

    Idrinkyourhealth wrote:
    Gil-Gandel wrote:

     

    (I don't use my rating to gain respect)

    I should hope you didn't.

    it's repsect*

    REPSECT, ********* ****** !!!!!

    Eggzactly! Rep-sect is a weightlifters cult.

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #509

    Phelon

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #510

    tubebender

    Ziryab wrote:
    tedthepirate wrote:

    Yeah I agree, correspondence chess rating is irrelevent. I don't see how anyone could possibly disagree. Real chess is to play on the spot, with equal, real times. (Yes I know I have a online rating that is the highest. One more game to finish then never again.)

    NOOOOO. My correspondence rating is my life. Nothing else matters.

    I believe in quality Chess. I play USCF Correspondence Chess; you actually can create beauty.

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #511

    heinzie

    Idrinkyourhealth wrote:
    Gil-Gandel wrote:

     

    (I don't use my rating to gain respect)

    I should hope you didn't.

    it's repsect*

    REPSECT, ********* ****** !!!!!

    restecp

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #512

    badger_song

    Agent of Spectre gets no repsect.

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #513

    nameno1had

    Some respect has to be earned though...and some won't give it, no matter what...UndecidedWink

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #514

    kiwi

    Online chess may be the only form of chess people play to obtain any sort of "unofficial" rating... 

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #515

    YeOldeWildman

    It's more fun to disparage OP's spelling...

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #516

    Ziryab

    landlubberdolphin wrote:

    do you even lift?!?!

    Balls and other toys mostly. woof woof


Back to Top

Post your reply: