Then why do you care if folks with big numbers next to their names won't "play down"?
He mistakenly believes that the World owes him a game of chess.
Fake Rating
Sort:
I'm personally a little disgusted that I never got a chance to fight Mike Tyson.
Sure, I have no formal boxing training and haven't been in a fight since I was about 13 years old, but still, his refusal to fight amateurs tells me that he never really earned all of his accomplishments and titles as a boxer.
Talk about a glutton for punishment.
The world owes you a fight with Mike Tyson now, TheGrobe.
So long, been good to know ya'.
bigpoison wrote:
Talk about a glutton for punishment.
The world owes you a fight with Mike Tyson now, TheGrobe.
So long, been good to know ya'.
I wouldn't be so sure.
Grobe hasn't had a fight since he was thirteen, must be a good runner.
GMLoveJr - just so I'm not missing anything, you're argument seems to boil down to:
"The world doesn't work the way I imagine it should. anyone who doesn't conform to my ideals isn't as morally upright as I am. you all owe me. OH, and just because I out "GM" in my name doesn't mean I'm trying to have people confuse me with a real chess player."
Does that about sum it up?
daw55124 wrote:
GMLoveJr - just so I'm not missing anything, you're argument seems to boil down to:
"The world doesn't work the way I imagine it should. anyone who doesn't conform to my ideals isn't as morally upright as I am. you all owe me. OH, and just because I out "GM" in my name doesn't mean I'm trying to have people confuse me with a real chess player."
Does that about sum it up?
Daw, sounds like you sniffed him out for the true turd he is. I wonder if he wouldn't feel better to be a fake turd but with a higher fake rating?
Sep 26, 2011
0
#48
@daw55124:
How did you know what I was about to post? 
Aside from that, it is always refreshing to see that the internet provides a continous supply of trolls like our OP.
Sep 26, 2011
0
#49
GMLoveJr wrote:
GeordiLaForge wrote:
I refuse to play people with fake titles (GMLoveJr) in their user names.
Fake titles huh? How do you know that i am not already a GM?
How do you know We are not Kasparov? Anyone can claim to be anyone or anything, besides real GMs wouldn't have to claim anything, their rating would reflect exactly who they are; as your does. >:[
GMLoveJr wrote:
PrawnEatsPrawn wrote:
GMLoveJr wrote:
heinzie wrote:
For higher-rated players there's no real point in playing games with you. Practice against other 1400s and 1500s first.
Would you like to play me Heinzie so you can see that there is a point? If not then you can keep your mouth shut.
Easy Tiger! you devalue your own argument with gutter talk like this.
Not gutter talk at all im simply challenging someone who feels like playing me would be some kind of easy victory or the quickest checkmate they have ever given someone. Im challenging him so he can see that there would be a point to playing me and that he would learn something from our game. I was actually offended by his previous statement. Especially seeing as he doesnt know me and has never played me. Thats why i told him he could either play little old me or shut his mouth.
Chip on your shoulder? You have a Napolian complex in the chess world.
bigpoison wrote:
Talk about a glutton for punishment.
The world owes you a fight with Mike Tyson now, TheGrobe.
So long, been good to know ya'.
Well, I guess that was short sighted of me....
Notes - To a possible GM!! (Belvin to be exact)
I just don't understand. Why not just resign? For your game, I had to wait over a minute. I wouldn't do that to you.by xxxxxx 14 days ago- Hi Kelvin You say you just let the clock run out instead of resigning. Chess is a game between TWO players. It's just common courtesy to resign when you are done. How would you like it if every player you beat just left you hanging until the time ran out? by xxxxxx 15 days ago
GMlovejr i would agree with your argument when someone who has a rating of 1900 but has an average oponent of 1350. my rating is on average somewhere between 1550 to 1800 rating and i play average 1800 oponents. my quest is to become better and try to get that average oponent rating up. judging by my experience in playing these kind of ratings it is very tough games at times and it could take me a long long time to get to 1900 rating. if i try so hard to do that, losing to an 1350 is too much points to lose and too little to gain. it is a huge struggle to earn points mate :) good luck
In a real tournament you can not play someone if there is a huge rating difference, you will forfeit the game but no rating will be lost...
Sep 26, 2011
0
#56
I just want to point out that once again we are dealing with a guy who has been a member here for about a month. So, here a month and tells us all "how it should be done". Oh Kelvin...you are such a poser. Just look at your pic.
Sep 26, 2011
0
#58
"GMlove" claims to have never said he's a "GM". I think it's time to stop "huffing" and "puffing" dude. Also he claims to have a "secret" move that makes him unstoppable. I think he must be playing the "matrix" attack since he claims to be a world beater with the white pieces. As I said the BEAST has been now been released and it's time for the gloves to come off:
ratings help you find opponents...
I dont care who you are or what your rating is, if you dont accept and play challenges from any and all people then you havent truly earned your rating!! That means if you are rated 1737 and you don't accept and play a challenge or challenges from people 200 points or more below you then you are not truly a 1737! The whole idea of having a rating is to show where you sit accurately on a scale of ALL chess players in the entire world not who you choose to play. Now i know your scared to lose 14 or 15 points if you lose but if you are scared to lose a game in the first place then you need to get better plain and simple. And i also know most of you out there who decline challenges from extremely lower people dont want to play them because they make severely stupid openning moves and its very frustrating but if you cant defeat that then you are not a true "good" chess player. Furthermore, my "True" rating in Bullet is 1300 and Blitz is 1311 so dont think this is coming from someone who's rating is 500. Man up or Woman up and play Chess! Stop being scared chess players and play! If you went to a tournament right now and someone was matched against you with no rating or title and in all realness would only be 900 or something you couldnt just choose not to play them you would have to and would probably take a loss because you are not truly as high as you purport yourself to be. There are a whole lot of people out there rated 100-300 points higher then they really should be!
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'.
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.
Then why do you care if folks with big numbers next to their names won't "play down".