Fake Rating

 I am very mad. I had 7 straight games aborted by players who in none of the cases were rated more than 300 points above me and it made me start this topic. I get so mad because if they are so much better than me then they should win. And i only play bullet anyway so thats 2 minutes max that it would take for us to play a game anyway. And my best wins for Bullet and Blitz are over 1900 so its not like i couldnt take someone who is 1500 or 1600 and really and truly my best win in blitz is 2015 but we played an unrated game so come on man PLAY CHESS.

 I just played several tight games with someone rated 1700s and have played tight games against IM Pruess and FM TheMagician and i am rated 1000+ below both of them so i highly doubt you can just make a statement like 200+ points under would be an easy win. If you are rated more than 1300 in bullet or 1511 in Blitz why dont we play a game and you can tell me after how easy it was for you to win if you can do so.

Hey genius it doesn't matter what the playing strengths are between the players, the true rating will emerge regardless based on the results of the games.  The results of the games will be determined by the players actual strength and the ratings will be as accurate as if "any and all" challenges are accepted. 

You would have been better off with a bit more self knowledge and/or honesty in your thread title and posts.  The truth is you're just pissed off because higher rated players don't want to waste time cleaning your clock game after game without a challenge.  You'll have to fight your way up the totem pole just like everyone else. 

 Pay your "dues" like everyone else and get better.  Don't you realize that the only reason most anyone around here cares about their rating is so that they can get stronger players to play with them?? In my opinion your are a self serving cry baby.  Just get better, if yo can.

 You should have more confidence and be less Naive. Who is to say you wouldnt be defeated by a 200+ lower player or possibly beat a 3000+ player?

I disagree with these statements, however. If you happen to own Chessmaster, then you should be familiar with the computer personalities of "Cassie," "Pete," "Niko," and "Stanley." If you are rated about 1300, then games against any of these four would certainly waste your time. If you played them very much, you absolutely would get rusty... probably quickly.

 I'm sorry Reb feels that way. And i have never claimed to be a GM so people can believe whatever they want. The only thing i have said was how does someone know that im not since whoever that was claimed so confidently that i wasnt. And im familiar with how to submit proof of being a titled player. And you are sadly mistaken to think that if you play someone significantly higher or lower than yourself that noone will benefit from it. The best way to get better is to lose. If you play a game that you already know to checkmate you might not gain further knowledge but it keeps you sharp and the defeated person can work on their mistakes from that game and grow so i cant agree with that statement. I mostly agree with what you have said though.

 Haha you should be a comedian. You seem mighty confident over there sir and i am willing to bet you that if we played a game you wouldnt be cleaning any clock but your own. Id give you a chance against me if i played black but you would be crushed if i played white. So be over there and talk if you want to but i bet all of that talk wont translate into any kind of challenge or actual game. So unless that happens you can shut your mouth too.

@GMLoveJr:  I think we will have to agree to amicably disagree, then. The reason I mentioned the weak personalities in Chessmaster was because, one day many years ago, I decided--just for a lark--to play a series of games against them, in order to see how I would fare. (I was actually playing through all personalities, up through the ratings echelon, and seeing how far I could ascend before I was soundly defeated.) I managed to garner undefeated records on every single personality until I reached the "Sonja" personality, when I finally faltered. Sonja is rated in the low 800s. The thing is, I consider my ability to far exceed the low 800s.

I believe that I lost one game to Sonja because I had become rusty and let down my guard. I also had noticed that my playing quality had been declining even well before I played Sonja. Therefore, I am a witness that playing opponents rated far below me did anything but keep me sharp. In fact, those games made me dull. I learned my lesson.

I respect your opinion, however, and I encourage you to do whatever works best for you.

 Sir im so serious you should stop playing chess and look into being a comedian because those jokes could be your trademark. If you would like to stop running your mouth and actually play me in a game then we can jump all over that but other than that you are so sorely mistaken if you think i am going to sacrifice any piece to you ever. It is amazing that there is something that not one soul on this earth knows besides me and would completely crush the thoughts any of you have towards me who have posted on this thread. For a piece of what i might be talking about why dont you take a look at my games archive and notice all of the games i resigned you will notice a pattern in those games that might make you think a little. If you care to take the time to do that. But i would seriously suggest you stop making the claims that you are about my gameplay because i would hate for us to actually get into a Blitz game and you had to eat each and ever single one of your words. Not only would you have to eat all of your words but i will actually take the record of the game and post it in a thread for your enjoyment posted along with it all of the crap you talked prior to the game. So keep talking if you want to sir you are just giving me more to post and adding fuel to your fire.

Its more than a little funny that in the OP's most recent 10 games he hasnt once played anyone lower rated than himself .  Perhaps the OP should practice what he preaches ?  

As a higher rated player I get accused of " padding my rating " by picking on weaker players if I play players 200 or more points below me consistently.  If I dont play them I am accused by some idiots of being " scared " of losing ..... so  ......

I don't think 1 0 games mean anything. And I don't think I have to play players 300-400 points below my rating(unless they're nice), in order to prove my rating. The rating is only fun for me if it remains a measure of progress. To cheat the rating by playing tons of people that are not very good at chess, is not fun. Since almost anyone can be good at this game with serious effort, I don't see why we wouldn't all just have to work harder to play higher rated players? Like one of the other posters said, 'you have to pay your dues'.

 I completely understand your agrument but why dont you take a look at it this way. This is the rationalization for my argument as well as the reason why i think the way i do. Completely throw out ratings! Completely throw out thinking you are above or below a certain rating! Fact: everyone makes mistakes in chess! Fact: Every game you play will be different. Fact: An openning of a beginner will be different then that of a Titled player! But what differentiates between a Titled player and a beginner is the depth of knowledge they have for the games they play. For example, lets take the move sequence e4-e5-Nf3-Nc6 lets say that this is as far as a beginner knows is correct to play so from move 3 on they are making educated guesses as to what moves they are to make. Same move sequence but lets say a FM is now playing, they will make those moves and lets say they know the variation as deep as move 11 before they then have to start making educated guesses themselves no matter who is playing against these two they will be playing a person who at some point is going to be making bad moves so how can you decided not to play someone who will maybe mess up come move 4 but play someone who might mess up come move 9? Just play chess. I respect your opinion as well and appreciate you being cordial on my post. I'm just trying to give you a different way of looking at things.

 Thats where your average opponent comes in because if you have a wide range of players you play then it will show you play a wide range in your average. Also, your archive will show that you obviously dont play low rated people all day everyday. It will show that you play very high as well as very low and everything in between. My current page will show i have played a range from 2380-300s i dont put a minimum or maximum in my games i leave them blank and press "Start Game" and whoever shows up to play is who i play.

@GMLoveJr: For your proposal, we would indeed have to throw out ratings. That idea doesn't sit well with me, however, because the ratings show us how vastly disparate each person's playing skill can be. If a 1200 player challenged a 2700 to a game, neither one would have any idea beforehand of the other's skill. We'd all be blindly stumbling around, looking for opponents. The 2700 would likely be disappointed in not having his brain challenged nearly enough, and the 1200 would be frustrated by the crushing.

All this is part of your point, that such things should just happen and not be a big deal. But a 2700 rating is so much higher than 1200. The magnitude of the disparity is truly astronomical. To talk of chances--does the 1200 have a chance to beat the 2700? Technically, yes--but this is truly unrealistic.

The purpose of the ratings is to serve as a guideline, nothing more. I want to play games of chess on this site... but against whom should I play? Without ratings, I would have no idea where to start. If I were just starting out on this website and were paired against a series of opponents who were much easier than I, I would think, "Aw, well, this site doesn't have the quality level I'm looking for." If, conversely, I were assigned about eight or nine players who were much stronger, I would be frustrated and say, "Yeesh, this is crazily hard. I guess chess isn't for me."

But the ratings tell me where to start. "Okay, I'll start with this 1275 player, and see how it goes." If I win easily, then I think, "Great! Now I'll try my skill against this 1500 player." Et cetera.

But to expect a 2700 to play against a 1200 without complaint is to misconceive the extent to which the 2700's skill towers over the 1200's--which is to say, astronomical.

Still, even though I disagree with your views, you have raised an interesting topic. Disagreements are perfectly fine, and can even be fun; they add richness to the forums and make contributions worthwhile. Thanks! 

 What is your definition of not very good at chess? If you were to play 10 games against people rated 500-600 points below you and you lost one of them could that person then claim that YOU are not very good at chess? Its all relative sir. Ratings tell you nothing. The only thing that matters between two people who sit down to play is who won the game. A rating is not going to tell you if you are automatically guaranteed to win the game or not. I have painfully paid my dues already.

The rating measures if you have paid your dues. You have to show if you can beat people consistently at the given rating level. So, you're rated 1300 in blitz. You play someone 300 points higher than you and you win one or two games, but lose the rest. You have not shown that you're ready to compete at that level. The rating tells me how consistently strong people are, not whether or not they could take 1 out of 10 games. That's no fun, unless you're chatting and having a good time, that is. But, if I want to test myself, I don't play people over 300 points lower than I. It's just not really a test generally. I have seen the errors they usually make, countless times. I would want to play someone who is nearer my level. That's a real test.

For me it's a time thing. One can't allow hundreds of thousands of players to dictate your schedule just because they feel they must compete against you.  Everyone plays for their own reasons.  Also, when I look for open seeks, i try to get games that have a time limit of 1 day per move as that helps me keep the train of thought in a game.  If those are not available, then i accept 2 or 3 days per move, since I want to get a game started. I barely glance at the person's rating because I found it to be largely meaningless.  There are too many factors involved in how the rating is computed.  I have also seen too many people game their rating up or down, so I don't place too much faith in it, nor do I care what mine is.  Oh, I'm sure the rating gives you some vague and general idea of something, but when I sit down in a coffeeshop and play with someone, I don't ask what their rating is--I just want to have a go at the game.  I have played many good games against players of all ratings. I have also lost my share of games to those lower rated than me.  Maybe I played poorly, maybe I played too fast, maybe they're stronger player than their rating shows, maybe I tried to be too clever for my own good with the combinations.  So what? On to the next game.