Just a small correction to the title, we can t call it properly 3000 ELO...it s chess.com ranking.

it's 3000 Glicko, however elo doesn't imply FIDE or USCF rating either. Elo is simply the name of the rating system most often used to calculate player strength.

If chessnetwork's real rating is like 2400, then he could get to 3000 because he's better than everyone else and therefore wins pretty much every time. It's weird that the strongest players on live are only in the low 2000 range but on something like ICC there's tons of GM's.

Thats amazing :0

Kasparov 'only' had a rating of 2851, so something is up.

Because chess.com ratings reflect FIDE ratings...right

1.  Chess Network isn't playing 2750 FIDE graded Grandmasters.  IF he was then his rating wouldn't be close to 3000.

2.  Chess.com grades are inflated.  Grades become more reliable when players play other players of a similar strength all the time.  In OTB tournaments you don't find 2400 rated players playing 1700's all the time so the true grades are more reliable.  As an example:

If a 2700 rated player plays a hundred games against 1700 rated players he will win all the time.  As a consequence his grade will improve despite him having never beaten someone of a similar or greater strength to him.

 Not necessarily.They use same system but generally chess.com ratings tend to be higher than ELO ones.

I honestly don't know how this guy hasn't gotten bored reeling off 700+ straight wins over much weaker opponents.  He's good to be sure but with FIDE elo of around 2400+ he'd simply be "above average" over at ICC.  Like others have said we need more International Masters and Grand Masters to come over to chess.com to round out the field before ChessNetwork will get an accurate rating.  If Hikaru Nakamura came over here at this time I have absolutely no doubt he'd easily achieve a rating of 5000 simply because he would have no match.  Even at ICC where there are constantly 2600+ and 2700+ FIDE rated players playing bullet chess ( the best in the world including Magnus Carlsen) he has shown to be nearly unstoppable and a clear 300 points above his nearest competitors reeling off 100+ straight wins over the world's best on a good stretch.

Right now on Live Chess it is just the classic big fish in a small pond scenario but as time goes by and  Live Chess improves I can see Chess.com attracting more and more top level players and the rating pool will round out.  Even as things are I bet OzzieCobblepot and DavidForthoffer the strong NM Quick players here at chess.com would take Chess Network down a few notches but as far as I know they haven't met up with him as of yet.

Yesyes, everybody read the remarks above, you just can't compare ratings from a unique, open, online setting.

Considering the player in question spends time working on training videos, tutorials, etc, and a chess.com rating is purely a means of judging your improvement and means nothing official outside of this site, what is the motivation for cheating?

I realize that there are some who do cheat, and I'm sure they are all at least 800 points higher than myself. But i say, bring them on. It's all practice on this site, get it? Beating a good computer helps your game in many ways.

I saw one guy make it to 2000 but by only playing people under1300.  He'd get only a point or two but after a while it adds up.  This guy rarely goes above 1700 rated players.  If he is a Master and plays Quick games often and on other , more faster, sites.  Then I think he could get to 3850 pretty quickly.

Have any of ya'll seen the quick games on ICC??  Those games are ridiculous.  I bet you money chessnetwork played on that site before coming over here or maybe he still plays both.

Boog.

ChessNetwork is a NM hes just good!

http://www.twitch.tv/chessnetwork

my first time to include in chess .com and i still observing