That would be a real challenge though... get a rating under 600 by only drawing games. It would take a lot of work. I suppose you couldn't avoid some random losses when people resign though.
do you ever see rating of 144 in chess.com???? i do
Sort:
Conflagration_Planet wrote:
You don't remember that guy who was rated zero, wafflemaster? He did his on purpose too. It wasn't to sandbag though, cause it would be ridiculous to go that low.
Yeah I remember that. Was he banned? I think his name was Timmy something.
Yeah. That South Park kid in a wheel chair. No, he wasn't banned, his account's just inactive.
never...must be very very weak player
:o
Bartleby73 wrote:
Maybe you can get low ratings by simply losing all the time?
Indeed, that's how the rating system works (basically).
Cogwheel wrote:
do you ever see rating of 0 in chess.com i do
O.O
Thats all messed up.
Cogwheel wrote:
do you ever see rating of 0 in chess.com i do
That's the one I was talking about. It says he logged in a couple weeks ago.
Conflagration_Planet wrote:
Cogwheel wrote:
do you ever see rating of 0 in chess.com i do
That's the one I was talking about. It says he logged in a couple weeks ago.
Thats too bad - he missed his 15 minutes!
macer75 wrote:
Check out this blog by that guy:
Greatest game ever played. :)
Cogwheel wrote:
do you ever see rating of 0 in chess.com i do
http://www.chess.com/members/view/timmaylivinalie
wowwww this guy is even better than megnus how he is 0
You don't remember that guy who was rated zero, wafflemaster? He did his on purpose too. It wasn't to sandbag though, cause it would be ridiculous to go that low.