My chess coach (who has a very high rating) said I play a very good game, he wasn't just buttering me up, he already had his fee safely tucked away in his wallet. Ability can fluctuate. In some games I would be given a high rating but in others I would not and would get a low score, some, not all of us, have health issues to contend with, and our ability fluctuates from game to game. Under such circumstances it is almost impossible to estimate a players accurate rating.
Beware! Low stats does not equal lack of ability!
Sort:
Ellie47 wrote:
My chess coach (who has a very high rating) said I play a very good game, he wasn't just buttering me up, he already had his fee safely tucked away in his wallet. Ability can fluctuate. In some games I would be given a high rating but in others I would not and would get a low score, some, not all of us, have health issues to contend with, and our ability fluctuates from game to game. Under such circumstances it is almost impossible to estimate a players accurate rating.
As a teacher myself, I can tell you this; no self respecting teacher is EVER going to say anything other than something like 'you play a good game'.
I'm not saying you don't, I don't know. I'm just saying you can't trust what teachers say. 
I'm with Ellie on this. If they suck, they suck! Better to tell them so they can do something about it.
Kind of stupid to say lower rated players cheat and use computers when they win---if they did that they would not have low ratings in the first place. I don't see what anybody would gain by losing on purpose on this site exctp to have a worse records and lower ratings I think some people on here can not exccept it when they lose to a lower rated player on here.
Yes, Anand is better than Carlsen, but Carlsen was always a much better student.
richb8888 wrote:
Kind of stupid to say lower rated players cheat and use computers when they win---if they did that they would not have low ratings in the first place. I don't see what anybody would gain by losing on purpose on this site exctp to have a worse records and lower ratings I think some people on here can not exccept it when they lose to a lower rated player on here.
THis site seems to bring out all kinds of lows in its users.
It's gamers looking to be a high points scorer. I reckon a huge percentage can't play chess and so have only one way to get their big points.
ViktorHNielsen wrote:
Rating has nothing to do with chess skills. Rating has something to do with results.
Chess skills have something to do with results.
Therefore rating has something to do with chess skills.
bongcloudftw wrote:
what are rating points? someone pls tell me.
Rating points are assigned by your opponent based on how they felt you played in the game. They can give from -10 to +100 points. -10 being the worse, and +100 being the best.
You can also send in empty crisp packets to have rating points added.
Iluvsmetuna wrote:
You can also send in empty crisp packets to have rating points added.
Is that good for potatoe chips too?
Rancheros and taytos, other packets may need adjudication.
Mr Perri is usually good.
Iluvsmetuna wrote:
Mr Perri is usually good.
French points are no good.
They run away from the bigger points.
Dec 20, 2014
0
#36
I feel much more comfortable playing someone with similar stats to me, I guess that goes without saying. But, if a player with much higher stats challenges me then I always accept; we go on a huge learning curve when we are fighting to survive in such circumstances. That is the way we learn and improve.
Dec 23, 2014
0
#37
Hey! (Re Sandbagging), I may not be the sharpest knife in the draw, but why would anyone play games to lose?
Dec 23, 2014
0
#38
kaynight wrote:
To deflate their grading to enter a tournament with a chance of winning in a lower group, for one.
True but why sandbag to 500-600? The lowest category for tournies is <1200.
my input may not matter much considering my skill level, but since i am a low rated player i guess my 2 cents might be useful. low rated players dont acheive consistent results/good moves. ive played with really low rated players and they have flashes of brilliance(at least from my prespective) but they dont follow up on it, whereas i can see the incoming threat/mate and bemoan their missed opportunity. with more expereince and a greater underestanding of the game these players can connect 2 flashes of brilliance then 3,4 etc. and thats how you get a higher rank/become a better player.
on the other hand some good players do like hanging around lower rated players. this is true of anything. i throw games when i play sports cause i want to hang around the other team. i throw games in chess by doing ridiculous openings.(move all pawns to the 4th rank irrespective of opponents moves).
point being, online rating is an(flawed) indicator of skill/results, not potential and talent.
On average, low rated players don't play very well. That's how they achieve low ratings.
Indeed how not very well they play on average is directly and precisely related to their ratings.
And it's the same for all of us.
Or, as Aristotle put it "A=A"