Am I overrated?

@goldenbeer: you LITERALLY said ( in comment #10) that you dont understand ratings differences. yet here you are, only 8 posts later, challenging @contenchess about his take on ratings differences. so you must me one quick learner!!!!  or...is it possible that you are just one of MANY people who create forums on this site with extremely fragile egos looking for anonymous people to pay them a compliment? hmmm--i wonder which i could be?

Impressive. Face facts. You're a natural talent. It happens in chess math and music. I doubt you're a prodigy but with work you could be a Master or better. Personally I wouldn't want natural talent because I didn't work for it and I wouldn't care. Or maybe I'm jealous 🤔

@pawnstar1957 ...I'm charging him/her for these compliments. $4.95 each. It's not much but it pays the bills.

ha!

i sincerely hope the OP is no older than 10. otherwise the premise of this thread is just...sad.

@Pawnstar1957, I don’t understand my own rating differences, clearly I explained in the exact same post why my rating increase is not understandable when neither my knowledge nor my speed improves. I didn’t talk about others. Actually I see others won over each other by having superior knowledge or speed, that’s reasonable. Before trying miserably finding contradictions and write a complete nonsense, at least read the post you referring to.

Definitely older than 10 🤔

@Contenchess, I think I’ll not play standard otb game (I played some many years ago), and I’m not interested in long games, thanks for all of your complements, however, I’m just trying to convince you and others that everything is fake 😀 in particular unexplainable prigress of me (of course my progress is not super fast like many top GMs, rather it is slow, but even this progress makes no sense).

post @10: "i dont understand ratings differences."

post #18: "i think 1900 hundred blitz is much stronger than 1900 fide, it should be around fide."

almost everything you say attempts to shed light on what a wonderful chess player you are. you have never studied and yet you are brilliant. you won a chess tournament with six wins against higher rated people. blah blah blah. you are clearly a magnificent chess specimen. you are as handsome as brad pitt, as intelligent as einstein, and as wise as king solomon. there. do you feel better now?

yeah, goldenbeer, math is fake. stick with that one.,

@goldbeer...the ratings online are severely inflated. Hundreds of points.

Also I’m old enough to be busy heavily with my job, @Pawnstar1957 is one of those guys who wants to be smarta$$, dude I really don’t need any complements, I’m literally very good at some other stuffs and I got a world title on them when I was much younger. I don’t need to come here to ask people to give my anonymous account compliments, I clearly try to say all these things are fake since they are unexplainable. A week ago someone else wrote all our ratings are fake and I was the only one who was above 2k and supported that user.

not buying it. neither is anyone else. you are a sad little man trolling for compliments.

@Pawnstar, @pawnstar, stop trolling, the first post is this:

“I don’t understand rating differences. I feel soon I should be …. But knowledge or speed improvement: zero.”

Your reading comprehension literally sucks.

The second one was for rating of this site (average of all people) and fide, and there is a study for what I said (actually ratings under 2200 in chess.com are close to the corresponding fide rating if the player plays actively fide rated games, when rating passes 2200 inflation starts in chess.com and for example we have a ridiculous 3200 blitz rating here but best blitz fide rating is under 3k).


Anyways, what you can argue here is that, if I say these are fake then why am I arguing on those numbers, this is just because among these fake things at least keeping track of every existing item carefully so that when I make a claim, I can back it up. This is hard for you to understand though.

yeah i read the first post, but in fairness to you, i didnt know math was fake. thanjks for the inside info

I ment @pawnstar1957. BTW who cares if you buy it old man with broken reading comprehension. Are you really from 1957? That’s old, not too much but old enough to be able to read a paragraph.

nice comeback. very witty.

Math was fake? Okay old man keep trolling.

sigh. wait a minute. i get what you did there. you took the fact that YOU said ratings (based on math) were fake and when i called you on it, you tried to turn it into something that I said.... very briliant move...assuming you are on a jr high debate team!

Dude, rating difference of me and my opponents is fake, the entire post is about this. I don’t have any superiority over many players who are 500 less than me but still I win. I call it fake. I didn’t brilliantly win the debate, you just didn’t understand/tried to not understand in first place.