I beat a 2000+ rated player in 30 minute rapid!
Sort:
wow
Jan 1, 2021
0
#5
According the game, looks like his 1000 friend played this game. Nobody with 2000 rating with clear mind would play 15. 0-0. or 21. F5.
Jan 1, 2021
0
#6
Great win! The obvious error looking back is black’s moves on 23 and 24 thinking the king had to go back and defend their queens side majority pawns when a quick count through of moves would show that black could go for whites kings side pawns and Queen before white could do the same on the queens side. Basically because the black pawns are more advanced. In the heat of the battle it’s a mistake that can be made.
Jan 1, 2021
0
#7
Agree the comment though that blacks mistakes don’t look like a 2000+ rating, even in heat of battle
Jan 1, 2021
0
#9
Another great proof that ratings below 2000 mean nothing on this site, and anyone can beat anyone. Been 1700-1800 on a correspondence-like chess site, and here stuck at 1200 in 10 minute rapid, I can easily see many people in the low 1000 sometimes play better than many 1800s I've played. This site is a joke.
Btw here's another great example from a few days ago, a 1500 player beating a titled Master in the chess arena in 10 minute rapid.
https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/6099440289?tab=report
Going back to the 2000 guy from the OP - look at his past games. He's beaten 2000 ELO players but still lost to a 1250. Even more proof ratings here are a joke.
Jan 1, 2021
0
#10
Btw here's another great example from a few days ago, a 1500 player beating a titled Master in the chess arena in 10 minute rapid.
https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/6099440289?tab=report
Going back to the 2000 guy from the OP - look at his past games. He's beaten 2000 ELO players but still lost to a 1250. Even more proof ratings here are a joke.
It's just my opinion, but! This game, where 1300 beat FM, is a perfect example of "very suspicious and strong play by 1300 player" 
Jan 1, 2021
0
#11
theendgame3 wrote:
xor_eax wrote:
Another great proof that ratings below 2000 mean nothing on this site, and anyone can beat anyone. Been 1700-1800 on a correspondence-like chess site, and here stuck at 1200 in 10 minute rapid, I can easily see many people in the low 1000 sometimes play better than many 1800s I've played. This site is a joke.
Btw here's another great example from a few days ago, a 1500 player beating a titled Master in the chess arena in 10 minute rapid.
https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/6099440289?tab=report
Going back to the 2000 guy from the OP - look at his past games. He's beaten 2000 ELO players but still lost to a 1250. Even more proof ratings here are a joke.
"This site is a joke"
then why pay for a membership?
Indeed, Im regretting it so much. But I've already paid for a year membership.
Well played! Even with those 4 pawn islands and 2 of them doubled you still managed to get it. Active king wins!
Arguments against the ratings are arguments against math. Just because you get SOME people that aren't worthy of their ranks or some anomalies doesn't disprove the value of the system itself.
Most of the time the ratings do a fine job. When I get matched against a player of similar rating they almost always play close in skill to myself, especially if they have played a lot of games.
Rating also doesn't guarantee the higher elo person wins, just that it is more likely that they do.
xor_eax wrote:
Another great proof that ratings below 2000 mean nothing on this site, and anyone can beat anyone. Been 1700-1800 on a correspondence-like chess site, and here stuck at 1200 in 10 minute rapid, I can easily see many people in the low 1000 sometimes play better than many 1800s I've played. This site is a joke.
Btw here's another great example from a few days ago, a 1500 player beating a titled Master in the chess arena in 10 minute rapid.
https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/6099440289?tab=report
Going back to the 2000 guy from the OP - look at his past games. He's beaten 2000 ELO players but still lost to a 1250. Even more proof ratings here are a joke.
mad bcuz bad
He really is.
The ratings are actually quite useful. He is at ~1300 because he wins around 50% of the time against them. Just because he couldn't get any higher the ratings don't mean anything, sure! Somehow the math skipped his account.
1300 is still better than 85% of people. It's a good rating. The ratings on other websites can just be much easier.
Jan 1, 2021
0
#16
I'm not claiming the OP cheated, though, he played the endgame quite well.
In before the lock
Discussing cheating
Jan 1, 2021
0
#19
xor_eax wrote:
Another great proof that ratings below 2000 mean nothing on this site, and anyone can beat anyone. Been 1700-1800 on a correspondence-like chess site, and here stuck at 1200 in 10 minute rapid, I can easily see many people in the low 1000 sometimes play better than many 1800s I've played. This site is a joke.
Btw here's another great example from a few days ago, a 1500 player beating a titled Master in the chess arena in 10 minute rapid.
https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/6099440289?tab=report
Going back to the 2000 guy from the OP - look at his past games. He's beaten 2000 ELO players but still lost to a 1250. Even more proof ratings here are a joke.
One sample game isn’t proof of anything. All three times I broke 2200 are because my opponent hung a piece and immediately resigned.
for example, a 2240 two days ago just gave me his knight. Then he resigned.
shrug
Jan 1, 2021
0
#20
B1ZMARK wrote:
xor_eax wrote:
Another great proof that ratings below 2000 mean nothing on this site, and anyone can beat anyone. Been 1700-1800 on a correspondence-like chess site, and here stuck at 1200 in 10 minute rapid, I can easily see many people in the low 1000 sometimes play better than many 1800s I've played. This site is a joke.
Btw here's another great example from a few days ago, a 1500 player beating a titled Master in the chess arena in 10 minute rapid.
https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/6099440289?tab=report
Going back to the 2000 guy from the OP - look at his past games. He's beaten 2000 ELO players but still lost to a 1250. Even more proof ratings here are a joke.
One sample game isn’t proof of anything. All three times I broke 2200 are because my opponent hung a piece and immediately resigned.
for example, a 2240 two days ago just gave me his knight. Then he resigned.
shrug
Look at this game first. There was no "stupid blunders". Poor FM just was crushed by 1300 . 1300 played all best moves in tactical complications...