People have always judged, and will always judge by status, rank, etc. But that only goes so far, there are times when that one must prove his strength through matches, combat, etc. and that is where the real player shines through, I suppose you could say.

Remember when Jesus Christ said "What does it benefit the man who gains the whole world but loses himself in the process?" Rhetorical question there my friends... You could view it as being said "What good is a high rating if it is (inflated) i.e. it is not an accurate measurement of your skill, talent, etc.

Bobby, I agree, I would love to be one of the best at chess as well, but I lack the patience sometimes to actually do what it takes to get there. That's always been an Achilles heel for me, I always want it now now now, but I know, for me wanting to play better, I really do have to buckle down and work for it  :)

It probably means they don't know what to do against it from the top of their head and don't want to bother themselves. I frequently get 1.d4 aborters which I find very stupid and pathetic.

I have a lot of respect for 1200 to 1400 rated players (my current seek parameters in live chess 15|0) who take on a 1015 player like myself. I usually find that 1300-plus players are most apt to abort, and for good reason.

Occasionally I’ll string one or two wins together on any given session against 1200-plus players, but my latest 10-game record stands at 1-9. Sometimes I get burned early, but for the most part I feel like I’m capable of making things interesting with a combination of surviving the opening game, playing aggressively in the middle game and being on the lookout for a break in the endgame. I can’t deny it’s a an extra rush when I beat a 1300 player, a recent occurrence however infrequently.

My personal stipulation is that once I fall below 1000, I will abandon the ratings parameters and take on all challengers. The thing I like about playing higher rated players is that the levels of civility and chess etiquette are correspondingly higher.