3 reasons Why "Online Chess" ratings deserves no repsect

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

I can see how it can be good practice at times to spend like 30 minutes on a single move, but skill can't really be determined by it.

Those who think online rating deserves no respect may think it's easy. It's not. Rating is a way to determine chess skill. OTB and Online ratings are different, hence they are different skill.

Why don't those try to play online? If they don't like it, they have no right to judge who play.

As I've said before, ratings predict/measure one's effectiveness at a certain style of chess in a particular pool of players.  In CC chess, there are many ways to be equally effective since it's a mix of intrinsic chess skill, time invested, and outside resources like books and databases used (and unfortunately computers by some...).  So if you like CC then play it;  if you don't then don't.

As for respect, that's up to the individual, but common sense suggests you ignore your opponent's rating (or those little red letters by their name) at your own peril!

YeOldeWildman wrote:

As I've said before, ratings predict/measure one's effectiveness at a certain style of chess in a particular pool of players.  In CC chess, there are many ways to be equally effective since it's a mix of intrinsic chess skill, time invested, and outside resources like books and databases used (and unfortunately computers by some...).  So if you like CC then play it;  if you don't then don't.

As for respect, that's up to the individual, but common sense suggests you ignore your opponent's rating (or those little red letters by their name) at your own peril!

I agree

Pathetic.

I just enjoy playing the position. I'm not that concerned with my rating or my opponents.

Postal chess is older than chess itself.

We would all be much better off,and have far more success if we thought more clearly and accurately...we w ould at the very least make better decisions,both in and out of chess.Terms and phrases like "winner,looser,have/has a life" are emotionally charged but utimately empty and meaningless,they certainly aren't productive,least of all to the people using them,Thinking in those terms ,and terms like them,will lead one astray,in many,many ways,and utimately to trouble.

Stop talkin and play. Those who say we on-line players dont desrve respect! C'mon (puff..puff puff.. throws jabs in the air). Play us standard or blitz

"Respect" isn't the word I'd use but online chess is definitely a lot easier than real-time chess.. up until recently I'd played correspondance exclusively for just over a year and have a rating over 1800 on another site, but playing real-time chess (30 minute games) here I haven't come and blown away all the 1200 guys straight off as I'd kinda expected. I'm 1300+ now after 27 games and hope to get a bit higher, but real-time chess is definitely harder at lower rating levels. Even at 1400 in correspondance you get people just hanging pieces, but it rarely happens if ever in real-time, certainly not at the levels I've played so far (1100-1400). And I've started playing OTB chess recently, and it's even more noticeable there, the 90-100 ECF (900-1000 FIDE) guys are a struggle.

My blitz rating is not reliable, as I played only one game and won it. 

My Standard Live rating is also not reliable, as I played 5 games and won all of them too. 

Only in turn-based I played enough games to make a rating analisis anything useful. 

Nor was it the term used by the OP. I think he was actually referring to a weight lifting cult.

Ratings simply rank players within a closed rating universe.  USCF ratings for example, rank players of USCF events only; Chess.com 'online' ratings rank online chess players on chess.com only.  Only very speculative comparison between the two is possible. Same with 'universes' here on chess.com:  Online ratings are valid for ranking online players, nothing else.

Really? Maybe he simply plays more blitz than than online? Or maybe he blitzes out the moves regardless of time control. Anyway there is just no reliable way to judgde this stuff at all. 

I don't have the patience for online chess and played maybe 5 full games and I think I dropped a pawn in one of them out of pure negligence. Blitz is a crapshoot as well because my connection is terribad and that makes blitz damn near impossible now. I dropped 400 points and I really only do it when I'm bored now. There are just too many variables to consider that would never occur otb.

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

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.

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.

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