Chess is to automatic? The higher rated wins in 99,99 % of the times.

In my opinion TS is just trolling. But I play mostly at an other site and won against players with a rating 300 higher and lost against 300 lower than me. And often because I or my opponent played a good game. How are you supposed to get better if you don't get to see what better is and you run from a fight? The important thing to remenber playing against stronger opponents is that you shouldn't be intimidated and just play your best. Most of the time I don't look at my opponents rating and I just play the board. Complicated tactical positions are your friend. Slow positional games are much harder to win against someone seriously stronger. 

And rating is just a number and completely unimportant. What is important,.. enjoying yourself and not 100 wins against weak opposition gives me the satisfaction winning against a much stronger opponent gives me. 

@An_asparagusic_acid in my opinion, you shouldn't quote long posts. You should just ping the person who wrote it. 

A 1500 can never beat a 1700 rated, and a 1700 can never beat a 2000 rated.

But the lucky thing is that a 1500 will always win vs. 1100, 1200, 1300, 1400.

It's a better odds for winning the lottery than beating a higher rated player.

It's not for no reason there is no Chess Sports Bets. The odds must be like 1,01 for the higher rated to win vs. 100,00 in odds for the lower rated.

YES to more tournament with +/- 3 or 5 rating points!

In a USCF rated tournament, as a 1500, I played 4 games. I destroyed a 1600, beat an 1800, destroyed a 1900, and lost to a 2000.

EDIT: got crushed by a 2000, not lost to

You were very underrated, It is impossible for an accurately rated player to play that well.

You were very underrated, It is impossible for an accurately rated player to play that well.

You were very underrated, It is impossible for an accurately rated player to play that well.

A 1500 can never beat a 1700 rated, and a 1700 can never beat a 2000 rated.

But the lucky thing is that a 1500 will always win vs. 1100, 1200, 1300, 1400.

It's a better odds for winning the lottery than beating a higher rated player.

It's not for no reason there is no Chess Sports Bets. The odds must be like 1,01 for the higher rated to win vs. 100,00 in odds for the lower rated.

YES to more tournament with +/- 3 or 5 rating points!

I don't know glicko formula, but with USCF, the rating difference goes like this.

1400 vs 1400 = 50% of winning for each player

1300 vs 1400 = 100 point difference = 25% chance the lower rated wins

1200 vs 1400 = 200 point difference = 12.5% chance the lower rated player wins

1100 vs 1400 = 300 point difference = 6.25% chance the lower rated player wins

1000 vs 1400 = 400 point difference = 3.125% chance of winning

900 vs 1400 = 500 point difference = 1.56% chance of winning

And these are based on many many games,but the bottom line is that even a 200 point difference is significant. Outside of the higher rated player getting distracted, there is little chance for someone rated 250 points lower than the opponent to win. Even a 200 point difference is pretty significant if the higher rated player is taking the game seriously.

That need to be luck/bug/mistake.

I don't think it's mathematical possible to beat higher rated players if we are both playing at our best.

Of course i can win vs. higher rated when they let time run out because they do other things.

that's why you improve your chess

I think the only way to improve your rating is to play lower-rated players and beat them, then you get maybe +1 or +2 in rating points, and then just carry on. In a 100-200 games you will have maybe 200 higher rating.

No not really