Ratings seems to be meaningless

a rating does not show how much you know about chess it reflects how often you win and lose against players of a given rating. if you are excellent with tactics but hang pieces because of a lack of board vision you will win some spectacular games against higher rated players and lose games like an idiot to people with lower ratings. this person would be of the same rating as someone who is terrible at tactics but never makes mistakes and wins because they have an extra pawn at the end. you cannot judge a player because of just one game because that may have been a very well played game or a very poorly played one

I think you can have different elo ratings at the same time and they're based on which opening you face so you might be 1600 in the italian game and one week you face it alot and your rating goes up to 1600 but next week you might face a bunch of fianchetto defences and the positions feel alien and your rating goes back down 200 points.

700-800 rated who know 15 moves of engine-perfect play in every sicilian line, evidently

BuT tHe RaTiNgS aRe InFlAtEd  JuSt GiT Gud

Sometimes they're meaningless.  It depends on the person.

It's like having a belt in martial arts..

Not every martial arts teacher or school hands out belts.  Some think they're meaningless. 

Does this mean someone with a black belt is a better fighter?  Of course not.

Ratings are kind of like that... some people just don't care much.

Like me.  My rating is 1200 something on here... But I'm not 1200, I'm more around 1800.  I know because I've beaten different 1700 and 1800 engines/bots on a regular basis.   It just doesn't matter much to show it off.  I play chess because I love it and it's fun.

Maybe not the best comparison. At least in some jiu jitsu schools for example, you don't get the next belt until you can consistently beat some people who already have that belt. In other words the ranking is purely based on performance... which is the same for chess.

It looks as if you read what I wrote but weren't paying attention at all to the point I was making... Which is pretty much what I expected.  

I didn't say "deserve".  I literally wrote about not caring.

Ah, I sigh for today's youth... So much lack of education and basic reading comprehension.

But don't worry.  I won't get into it with you.

I think it's a good comparison because it's talking about how it's all "for show".  Which it is... both belts and ratings are "for show".  There are plenty of great chess players who are playing chess in central park and they can beat some IMs, but they probably have no idea what their rating really is and probably don't care much.  There are plenty of people who are expert martial artists who don't have belts and don't care about 'em.

In short, I'm just agreeing with the OP.  Ratings seem to be meaningless.  

Shrug.

Play 10 rated games a day for a few weeks. No rematches (random pairings are best).

Your rating will fluctuate around your real strength. Not much more than +/- 50 points if you play under good conditions every time.

In other words the rating system is extremely functional... which goes without saying really.

I am 2300 here. I quite of agree. My Fide is low now too low for me. Because i always go to a tournament without sleep like zero hours! Because i have insomnia and other stress issues. But my chess understanding is of a chess master. And i am often beat masters here. Even some 1100 rated plays some decent chess in the club. I wouldn't underestimate anyone nowadays. 20 years ago before the engine analysis era 1400 would hang pieces every few moves but not today.

Tactics rating has little relation to actual playing strength. It only indicates your POTENTIAL, not your ABILITY.

When you are doing tactics puzzles, you already KNOW that the position in front of you is a winning position and that it contains a hidden combination that leads to a clear win.

You START with that information. All you need to do is find the key idea.

A real game is totally different. You START in a fairly level position (move zero), not a winning position. You have to first

1. out-maneuver your opponent to establish a winning advantage, then
2. stay alert and REALIZE that you have a winning game, then
3. treat it as a tactical puzzle and find the win.

A person can be very good at step 3 and still be totally pants at steps 1 and 2.

I once knew a 1900 uscf level player who did not understand pins. once I figured out his one particular weakness, I was able to defeat him consistently.

the point is that it is possible to be a high rated player and still possess fundamental flaws in your game. because rating represents the general understanding of the whole of chess not specific knowledge.

For me rating is obviously meaningless, because every player plays every game at different level. While playing with bots, 1000 rating player sometimes can play at the level of 500 or 1500, but bot will always play at the same level.