Eli,
You might also request that there be a response filter. IE. "only members
with a rating of 1600+ may post in this forum", or "men only", "women
only", "IQ of 130+ only", "adults only","small fury animals only", etc.
Rating after username on forums.
Sort:
victhestick wrote:
Eli,
You might also request that there be a response filter. IE. "only members
with a rating of 1600+ may post in this forum", or "men only", "women
only", "IQ of 130+ only", "adults only","small fury animals only", etc.
smart idea..
would my goldfish too be eligable for the forum??
Feb 7, 2009
0
#24
Somebody puts a lot of stock in chess.com ratings. Personally, I'd 100x rather rely on my own judgment than on some number.
Yeah I totally agree ... it annoys me to no end when people analyzing a game post their 'winning variation' when in reality they're missing mate in one :D. ... actually last time that happened it was a 2100 player commenting :P.
victhestick wrote:
Eli,
You might also request that there be a response filter. IE. "only members
with a rating of 1600+ may post in this forum", or "men only", "women
only", "IQ of 130+ only", "adults only","small fury animals only", etc.
but then wouldn't all the genius adult hermaphrodite small fury animals of the chess.com community be confused on where they could or could not post?
but seriously folks... if someone has a good thought or suggestion does it matter what their rating is? even Forest Gump said something smart every once in a while. but my rating is like 1100, so what do I know?
back to Duke-
you know what "genius adult hermaphrodite small fury animals" are
Feb 7, 2009
0
#28
I think you can have good ideas and a bad rating. The opposite is true too 
Bad or good listen to advice people give you.
Feb 7, 2009
0
#30
Despite lower rated players perhaps giving good advice it's fair to say that in general their advice will not be as good as higher rated players. This doesn't necesarily make it invalid though, a lot of people want advice that they can relate to, not some theories by masters that they can only pretend to relate to. What use is great advice if it's in a language that you don't understand?
batgirl wrote:
Somebody puts a lot of stock in chess.com ratings. Personally, I'd 100x rather rely on my own judgment than on some number.
Heck ya
fzweb wrote:
I like this idea. It will be very useful in things like Vote Chess.
You think? If you've played vote chess you should know that no one listens to the discussion.
JetSetter wrote:
If you're not a FIDE Candidate Master (CM = FIDE 2200, which is USCF 2100 ["Expert Class"] or ECF 162),
FIDE 2200 is more usually compared to USCF 2300 (I can't find the more precise formulas right now).
By being a member of Chess.com the understanding is that you do have a forum to comment write and express on Chess and issues regarding Chess .If a reader isn't in agreement with what i've writen or does'nt care for its content than that's their choice, but regardless if your rating is 2799 or 99 this site is for everyone who has an interest in the game of Chess and seeks to exercise that interest.
I agree it doesnt matter what ur rating is people have imagination and can find moves u might not have thought off. I'm over 2000+ at the moment but if a lower rated player has something to say about my games i listen and thank them for their imput. No need to be prideful most advice is useful no matter what level ur at....
edit this link with the username you want to see the rating for : https://www.chess.com/member/"username-you-want-the-rating-for"
It's an interesting idea, the problem I see with it is, what rating would we use. You can have up to four on the site (online, blitz, quick and long).
hum... put the mean?