High Chess Ratings Equal Smugness Amoung Lower Rated Players?

i do so.  it is 1200.  i just don't play live because i don't want it to go down.  this way i am about an average chess player. 

Good stuff and batgirl rocks (I would love to play you-I am low and smug also).

You bring the wine . . . (preferably pinot blanc).

pinot noir! 

so long as we agree no pinot gris.

Agreed

I have some wonderful '96 Dexcool antifreeze I've been saving up for the right occasion.

Batgirl, I have the wine here and I am pouring, grab a glass and I will grab the chessboard!

I am only good enough to realize how bad at chess I really am.

A very honest testimony however, MikeRichardson how would you vote with this poll?   

+1

The live rating measures the speed of your internet connection and the sensitivity of your mouse.

I've never been rude or condescending to anyone lower-rated in tnmt or match games, but I may have been a tad testy in some team vote games where players several hundred pts below me ignored my post for one move and suggested another move minus any supporting analysis of their move or refutation of my idea. Even then I've never been ultra-rude or nasty, although I guess I have been just a wee bit snide in a few cases. After all, if someone much higher-rated than me recommends a move I at least take it under serious consideration instead of just ignoring what they wrote and posting my preferred move.

Being smug vs someone lower-rated just because they're lower-rated is a bad idea...especially if they beat you!

Madeira!

I've been spanked too many times by lower rated, or much younger, players to be smug about chess. If anything, I'm more apprehensive about playing lower-rated players, because usually they have a strength somewhere in their game (usually the opening, or tactics). It only takes one mistake to lose a game.

definately smugness amoungst chess plyers,  comes with the job of getter better at it.

simply  not smug if u suck ,  if you get better , it equals the smugfactor culmination of improving ones rating.

no point cyring over spilled milk if you just beat the hell out of yet another stronger player, and showing off how terribly good you are. 

how many of you guys and gals have had comments of way beter players about some game you played stating:  this position is lost and so on and so forth, without having them explaining why .

now that is the factor which differentiates the humble player from the smug one. so.  definately a yes on smugness, since it cannot be removed from human nature

I once played in met a fellow who was rated about 1600. He told me that he was the 2nd strongest player in the world behind then world champion Karpov. He proceeded to lose next round game to a 1300 otb player. Is it possible that smugness and arrogance has to do with the personality of the person rather than the rating? On the other hand I once met an International Master who was very smug. I just don't know how I would vote on this issue.

It's like university studies: when you get your bachelor's degree, you're on top of the world and think you know everything. But if you study to become a doctor, you realize the extent of what you don't know.

The same applies to chess. If you're a little bit above average and have only played very weak opponents in your life, you think you're among the chess elite. But when you study openings and master games, and when your rating improves towards the expert level, you realize just how much better the world's top players are. In short, you'll encounter players with 1400-1600 ratings here that might be overly smug, but once you pass 1800, you'll see that humility is the prevalent sentiment.

For example, I know I suck.

I'll give my queen to anyone, regardless of their rating. But on those few occasions when I MEANT to do it, yeah, I feel smug :).