Am I over-rated?

I like to play live chess and 1 min games are the bane of my existence, but I enjoy it.  Recently I met an older gentleman who wanted a game.  After the second game of 6 which I won (6-0) he told me I was over-rated because I never mated him and only won on time.  I disagreed and told him he was just under-rated and slow :).

Although I understand chess can be frustrating...I've heard this now a couple times.  As if mating is of any importance in winning, I find this an interesting tactic to use in making a insult. 

Thoughts?  Oh I asked him to play a longer game of 5 0 so I could be more tactical, but he would oblige me :(

its obvious ,obvious that you are good immortal gammer....maybe someday you will accept my challenge...

Definately not. That person just isn't fully used to the world of blitz games... It's obviously VERY difficult to mate in one minute. Nearly impossible if your opponent just moves pieces randomly to confuse you.

sometimes, blitz can ruin your ability to analyze complex positions.

i can play blitz at a move a second in real life. A problem he may have had may have been LAG i get it all the time once or twice my opponent has had 0.00 seconds left and then they move and i lose! Lag can make bad stuff happen

I don't think that winning one minute games on time or by any other means proves much.  Lots of mindless moving about can be done to get a win in a one minute game.  That being said, I think longer games are a true test of how good a player is.  Obviously, immortalgamer, you are not overrated.  I've observed you before and looked at your games from time to time.  Your online chess play is excellent and has allowed you to obtain an impressive rating.  Nothing can argue with that.

If your opponent is too slow and flag before you get a chance to mate them, how does that indicate that you are worse. It's not your fault you didn't mate before he flagged, it's his fault.

lol immortalgamer... silly boy :P.

You're only overrated when you're playing against ME :P

So true!  LOL

well mating does seem to hold some significance because you really won if you checkmated their king, if they just run out of time every game to me that doesn't mean you won means they just lost first (however, I don't know what the games looked like or how they were played, I have played some games where I was winning by a TON but they just ran their time out on purpose, maybe some kind of justification to them that they "lost on time"). I have seem many people play quick that are not neccessarily good at chess they just play weird and waste your time so they win on time, so its possible to be overrated in quick, but like I said I don't know if this applies to you. If you played a game with whoever said that on a higher time control where you had sufficient mating time you could see whether or not he is actually a better player just slower

It dont matter if its mate or not. In 1min games u have to watch the clock!

I hate 1 min games my mind dont think fast enough i find i do better on a real board where i can grab the pieces quicker then moving the mouse. The fact this person lost just shows u r better at this time frame then they are. Whether or not u can beat this person at a much slower rate say 10mins or more i dont know. I do know the longer the time frame the better over u should be. Dont let them bother u who say that, i would say well its a 1min game not a 1 hour if u run out of time thats ur problem for taking so long. I played it faster and so thought less so who r u to say ur better then me based on that?...

Hay here is an idea y dont u ask them to challange u to a 3day per move turned based game or if they preffer live to a 30min game? If u still beat them 6-0 then u clearly out played them and are better.

yes

Yeah, like I said he declined the longer time.  I agree with all your comments except for one: e losing on time is the same as a mate and as a resignation in my opinion.

O-VER-RA-TED <clap clap clap-clap-clap> O-VER-RA-TED <clap clap clap clap clap>

In a word ^^

Play a standard 2 hr time control. There is a world of differrence between blitz and long games. True blitz can be fun occasionally, but for any player to take you seriously in chess, you will have to prove your knowledge in a thinking contest rather than a speed contest.

Speed chess is what it says. It measures dexterity. Personally the only gauge meaningful enough to assess your strength is the online chess. Live chess in a couple of months maybe.. could also be that when it becomes stable enough. So I looked at your online plays. One significant play I saw was with Boilermaker1234. The results inconclusive to my mind.

So tell you what. To be objective, play him again say 3 games.. then ask yourself the same question you posed here. Or ask him. Or play against LostGalaxy, then I will give you my opinion.

We have already played twice.  1 to 1.  He is stronger, I just caught him with a tactic one game.

You're probably rated accurately since you have a good sample of games and opponents from all ranges. It's just that a 1 0 rating doesn't indicate much of anything.

To me, it's actually boring to play that fast. All the intricacies and all the beauty is pretty much lost to me. Planning, calculation, endgame details or even just relishing the moment is hardly possible. It's like buying The Brothers Karamazov only to get a handful of messy scribbles with occassionally brilliant prose between the crossed out words. I have another analogy but it's not entirely appropriate here.