nice, but im actually quite good - top 30 in England Under 11
I quote from the Terms of Service which you agreed to:
"BY USING THE SERVICE, YOU ACCEPT ALL OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE PRIVACY POLICY AND THESE TERMS OF SERVICE AND REPRESENT TO US THAT YOU ARE 18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER AND ARE LEGALLY COMPETENT TO ENTER INTO AND AGREE TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE PRIVACY POLICY AND THESE TERMS OF SERVICE"
You have no business being here.
An adult monitors my account - it says that is allowed
oh yeah 
But thats not u11
I'm not talking bout you. I'm saying: I've seen accounts with a 2000 rating with only like 5 games under their belt. I feel like I could cook up some scheme to get in the same position, and then just sit on 2000 while playing only unrated, doesn't mean I'm in the 90-whatever percentile.
They might have more games which don't show up. If you go to someone's profile and click on "Games" you will see a list of games but not all of them. On the top of that list at the left it says "Archive". If you click on that you will see more games. I don't know if you will see all of them unless you have a paid chess.com membership.
very funny. if you round to the nearest 100 im 1500 though 
I know @apotosaurus who has tactics 2600 and 0tb 1600.
My roadblock is being abe to beat Chess King program at 1900. At 1850 the ROBOT engine is still programmed to make mistakes. 1900 hundred is ROBOT at full strength.
Higher than 1900, the program switches to the Houdini engine.
So in that context, I'm still not quite over the hump from being a really talented low rated player, and being an intermediate level player.
oh yeah
...passes soflores a glass of V8 juice.
oh yeah
...passes soflores a glass of V8 juice.
lol
1400 is not low rated.
The reason 1400 seems low rated to much higher rated players is because after about 1800 FIDE, esp. by the time you reach 2100+ FIDE elo or so, it becomes logrithmically harder to get more and more points. So for anybody on chess.com sporting an official title from OTB play, I tip my hat to them.
It gets harder and harder because the players delve deep into opening theory, play the middle really well, and actually have to master the endgame. Against a good player, in the endgame, one slight inaccuracy can decide who wins or loses, when even exceptional play might at best draw the game.
1400 is not low; it's not high, either. Somewhere in the middle and that's alright.
An OTB official rating is going to be more indicitive of your true strength.
I'm guessing that on chess.com the ratings are over inflated. I'm guessing that at some point on the scale going up in strength, a player rated on chess.com and an OTB rating would deviate much less from each other. Something north of 2000 though.
I suppose someone with the data on chess.com could take a sampling of players on chess.com with also an OTB rating... say USCF, and all have a minimun number of games on chess.com, enough games to graph a deviation curve, perhaps 100 games
Anyway make a graph comparing the OTB rating to the chess.com ratings.
It would be intetesting.
Because it's true, and it's all contextual. In my local, real life community, I'm probably the strongest player in my county of Oregon (I have never been defeated or drawn in a number of face-offs), and I was definitely one of the strongest players in my old California county, according to its leading newspaper. Chess.com is a little bit more competitive.
OTB ratings arn't perfect. In the scholastic crowd (USCF), the majority of games are roughly 30 minute games after taking delay into account. Even a lot of non scholastic tournaments use something close to 30 minutes. I think 30 to 59 minutes can be duel rated as Quick and Standard.
30 minute games are really too short for players to properly digest the board position, so many games end up being about who can spot a blunder by a player first.
Some of my best games with a 30 minute time control have been about my opponent finding a blunder, then me finding a way to punish him for my blundering. Tactics are great, but if the sequence is more than 3 moves long, it can be difficult for the attacker to visualize the board position in the future.. it's easier for the defender to do that because he has already analyzed possible attacks as he's pushing his wood around.
Of course if I can't do that, I try to salvage what I can and cross my fingers.
Depends on your impression of what makes a "strong" player.
I consider myself a rather weak player, despite my 2350 online rating and my OTB draw with Tal (in a simul, of course).
I'm 1400 and I'm 83rd percentile. How is that low-rated?
The percentiles on this site do not make much sense. In Elo's original system, 1500 is the 50th percentile. 1400 is certainly in the lower half.
Hence we have the absurdity of deflated ratings combined with the perception that they are inflated.
OTOH, when I was 1400, I thought it meant that I had a reasonable grasp of basic principles and was a pretty solid player (that was 1400 USCF--several years before this site existed).
Because it's true, and it's all contextual. In my local, real life community, I'm probably the strongest player in my county of Oregon (I have never been defeated or drawn in a number of face-offs), and I was definitely one of the strongest players in my old California county, according to its leading newspaper. Chess.com is a little bit more competitive.
Your profile says you are/were a judge. And you have a rating on Chess.com about 1200. That's barely above average, and the average is dragged down by people who have never played, but have decided to have a free game on the 'net.
Who on earth told you that you were the best local player? And how could you believe them?
Only 27 in the terafinal, i was third in the challengers