your goal should be higher than 1200. when i first started playing on chesscube, my goal was to be 1600. now i am over 2000 and feel i can go much higher.
similarly, in your case, you should be easily able to achieve a rating of 1700 here with the right amount of effort and approximately two years time.
Shafi
An intelligent person would never have any preconceived opinions about anything or anybody in any endeavour in life, ESPECIALLY on the internet where anything goes, positive or negative, and where you have never met the person.
There are a good number of reasons why any chess.com rating may not be a true reflection of a player's ability. This opponent of yours was obviously more concerned with your rating than your actual play which is of course childish (maybe he is still young) or just stupid (if he is an adult). In chess as in any sport, if you are indeed serious about it, there is only one thing that matters: find your next best move. It does not matter if your opponent is Magnus Carlsen or haegint. Probably Magnus will find better moves than you, but I am sure he himself will not AUTOMATICALLY assume so at move 1. By move 6 of course, he will have an idea... 
You can block certain members if they really annoy you.
Pdve,
That is true, you are right in not limiting yourself.I am sure you can go much higher! Similarly although I lack the skill now I do feel with chess the possibility is really limitless with respect to some aspects and the individual. I will definitely set the bar higher, I really appreciate the feedback and I hope to get to your level of skill in the near future.
Thanks.
Haegint,
You carry on vaild and strong points, especially with regards to mannerisms of the internet. I must say with respect that you are right and ultimately it is in all our best interests to continue to look forward and find our "next best move", which means so much on so many different levels.
I enjoyed your comparison with Magnus Carlsen, having become a GM at 13 years old, goes to show anything is possible with determination! :)
Thanks for your feedback,
Shafi.
shafi, it is always a pleasure to help an up and coming player. who knows what you are capable of.
there is one thing you should remember and let no one tell you otherwise. and that is that chess is something that can be learned. of course, there are natural players, but we are not concerned with them. max euwe was one of the players who actually learned chess. morphy, alekhine, etc.. were natural talents.
work your way up from the basics. but never never forget the basics.
You are welcome!
I wish all people had your attitude, it would be a better world.
Pdve,
Yes a natural players are highly respectible, however i agree with you in the sense that having that fondation set by bulding up from the basics can take you long ways as well as provide knowledge and more in depth insight. On a similar note I find that this is also respectible towards life and obtaing goals :).
chess_me, chess can have different effects on different people. take the example of kasparov. he is a succesful player and is now striking out towards applying his chess knowledge to the tricky art of business decision making.
on the other hand, steinitz, rubinstein, fischer and many more died under tragic circumstances.
Pdve,
You raise a good point, I do need to follow up on more research in regards to some of these players. By any chance is this in reference to the book "How Life Imitates Chess" by Kasparov? On the other hand I am familar with several positive aspects to chess, however from your perspective how would you classify some of these tragic circumstances?
Thanks.
well, steinitz died penniless in a lunatic asylum. you probably know about fischer. btw, here is a great page ..
http://amog.com/entertainment/celebrity/craziest-brilliant-chess-grandmasters-time/
Morphy......
Morphy......Don't forget the good ones !!!!!!
Pdve,
Wow really good find, I'm blown away. In retrospective it makes you wonder about maintaining a healthy and well balanced lifestyle, especially for today's younger generation of GM's.
Thanks again very informative.
Shafi
Eddysallin,
Good point, I need to find more information on Paul Morphy :).
1200 is nothin in standerd... in blitz even i cant get 1200 but if u cut down in da bulet nd blit then u can get 1200 standerd nd u improv faster as well... nd u can block chat ingam when ur playin so dat mite help i do dat sumtime...
according to my coach 1700 is decent in standard here.
Ticcherr,
Thanks for your input, I will try to focus on strandard. I agree with you in that sense, considering I will have more time to actually focus on my moves. Usually I never have to block chat, but I will start as sometimes it is necessary :).
Also for those who are interested I found an article previously posted on chess.com about Paul Morphy :).
"http://www.chess.com/article/view/paul-morphy"
Thanks.
I come late to the party here but really appreciate your message above. I want to congratulate you on sticking with it and your constant improvement in a relatively short time. Well done, Shafi!
Ignorance is outwardly displaying one's of lack of confidence and trying to build up your own self-worth in an unsustainable, unhealthy way.
Generally speaking this is my first post on Chess.com. My experiences here have been wonderful so far as my interest in chess progresses and as I continue to practice!
I have learned so much from when I first made this account and automatically recieved a "1200" rating. The point of this discussion is for me to disclose an experience I had while playing in a tournament and perhaps I can get some feedback upon relating to some of you.
I am not trying to categorize myself but I am the type of player that has lose , and in my case several times, in order to win. That said I remember from a given "1200" rating I went down to the low "600's". At this point of my chess skill apparently I am in the 800's, as many of you will browse my profile and check anyway. To myself I know I am making improvement and will continue to do so as I play.My goal is to ultimately be >1200 and when you check you will see it is a result of playing hundreds of games.
So moving on to the experience, well I was playing someone with a higher rating and before the game even started there were some comments indicating arrogance on the other players end. Basically the person saw my rating and assumed several things. Well shortly into the game that person ended up having to resign.
Now I admit I am not a cocky person, that said upon playing chess I generally am always humble and respectful to whoever I play. After this game I just have mixed feelings on the subect.
(Short Vent I apologize) I feel players shouldn't judge based off your rating, personally anyone can create a new account and it wont mean anything without investing time and learning the game. I have read some of the discussion topics about ratings, and since we are on the topic frankly I dont know how significant it really is or what for some call not real chess but to me knowing I can bring up my rating obviously means I am getting better and its my own assurance. I know I can't change several of the players who choose to be bad sports or do the things they do while losing but sometimes it sure does make me angry when someone will call me a "noob" based off a rating.
To conclude I have been continuing to grow my intersts in chess as I am a day to day player. I look forward to every game, every tactic, and improving. What I love most about chess is applying the aptitude on so many levels of everyday life such as thinking ahead. I will work hard for higher rating, even if its not significant but just to know I have improved. There is so much information on chess I just can't get enough of it, but more importantlly and lastly chess is a progression and I will continue to choose chess.com.
I would grantly appreciate your comments/concerns
Thanks for reading,
Shafi