Chess rating is a scam

Well, in that case...

Making blunders isn't organic - playing good chess is just about painfully examining your own weaknesses (takes a lot of willpower) and making sure you don't make them again (a lot of willpower again). 

Just playing a lot of games won't do anything - you have to study a serious game that you've played. 

A number is infinite if it is greater than every finite number. This means that a 2600 would always beat a 1300, even if they played any number of games. 

To show that this is not true - there are a finite possible number of chess games. If a player makes a random configuration of chess games, there is nonzero probability that he/she will make perfect engine moves, and Stockfish can easily beat a 2600, which shows that infinite doesn't exist in my context.

The truth is, I got frustrated at losing some 1 minute games, and so I came here, got a little annoyed, and lost some control over myself. 

Anyways, sorry I was mean. That is all...

I don't play chess.com for the rating, I play chess.com for the games.  The games are good, it's the rating that is a joke.  No chess rating matters at all other than uscf and fide.  Just don't worry about the ratings on here, just have fun playing chess.  There some good challenging games.

OK, sure, George Bush would maybe beat Carlsen if they played zillion games just by mere luck of making 40+ excellent moves in a row by chance. That is, if infinity doesn't exist - he has a nonzero probability to do so. If infinity does exist then his nonzero probability becomes zero - he has no chance of beating him whatsoever. 

Anyway, this is just clapping. Off to my beer... See you in another life. That is - infinity. Chess rating won't matter there for sure. 

The fact is, if they played 10 games/day, George Bush would die before beating Carlsen.

The point was though, that I was just giving an example. Over the long run, a 1300 would not be able to score half the point that a 2600 would score, if they played many many games. 

That is why the ratings are so skewed - so few players with high ratings like 2600+, since they are so good. 

What I think is most interesting about OP's stupidity is he seems to believe that chess.com invented ratings as a way to trap people.  The Elo rating system has been used in the USCF since 1960 and every chess site, federation, and governing body uses rating of some sort.  Does OP actually think he is as good as a 2700 player and that the 2700 was just "gifted" a higher rating?  If you play people who are substantially better (or worse) than you and have corresponding ratings you'll be able to see the difference.  Try playing correspondence against a 1000 and a 2000 and see what happens

I feel your suffering. Don't end up in the pit of fire. You heard me!

The reason it is hard to get your ratings over about 2000 is that it would be a full time job....most of the high rated players are pros who have decided to play chess as their profession or as a second profession....do you really think most of us weekend warriors that maybe took a little martial arts as a hobby could beat a pro UFC fighter???? I certainly don't.

OP's thread is hilarious lol

If you don't like these numbers why don't you simply stop looking at them.

BTW there are way too many people out there who believe sincerely they're 1900 when their actual strength is like 1200 (or other values).

Go in a club for real and get your ass kicked by titled players or even 2000+ many times until you're cured from this fantasy for good, you're not special, even if you consistently win against grandma or random drunk people in pubs.

This guy spoke completely nonsense. The rating distribution is perfectly Gaussian with an average about 900. So you start out above average. It would be a direct challenge to probability theory if it's not Gaussian.

The point he makes about most of us being noobs forever is brutally accurate.

And two years later!

This thread is still open.

OP rating is still the same( 1300), and top players are still, 2x his rating.

 Long live SCAM site( chess.com)

Funny thing is that I keep hearing from folks everywhere that anything below 1800 is garbage, but even this 1342 plays better then over 76% of the CHESS PLAYING population, and could I bet be in the top 2% of the population in chess skill. Seriously why are we considered so pathetic...

Considering about 99% of people in the world have played less than 1000 games of chess in their life, it's no surprise that the vast majority of people are bad at this game.

If someone spent 5 years memorising digits of pi, then bragged about how they've memorised more digits of pi than 99% of people have done, would you be impressed? I wouldn't.

But would you feel like the people who memorized even more digits of pi then that person are entitled to make fun of them, because they memorized more pi then 99.9% of the population rather then 99%.

I suppose it depends on your standard of measurement. I consider myself to be a pathetically bad chess player... and I'm sure pfren would agree!

Bad player??? You play daily chess like some sort of master dude! You should try rapid or blitz some time just to see where you'll end up rating wise.