Find your REAL ELO rating: ELOMETER.NET then post here the results

You just disproved your own point about the test being accurate then. Your real ELO is obviously not 1776.

With all due respect, your rating is not over 2000. My conjecture was that to get over 2000, you have to know opening trees almost like a computer. That said, i refuse to believe you got your rating that high purely on instinctual play. Bobby Fischer read 4000 books on chess and advocated those wanting to learn to do the same then reread them. I admittedly have virtually no knowledge of openings or defenses, but my mid game play is fairly strong, by comparison. You are absolutely correct in saying mid game is more important, plus it is far more fun, unless you trick someone with an opening trap. My meaning in my post was that my rating, as well as many others, are skewed downward due to not being able to get past that opening phase. I play a computer and I can't get more than 10 moves in before finding myself down a piece. My opening instincts should improve here, since I am playing the daily. For 20 years online I have played nothing but 1 minute, to keep away from the cheaters. Here I can look at the Tactical Trainer of a person to see if are real or not. That's the beauty of this site compared to my other (brand X). There is no computer program capable of cheating the TT. I suppose one could be developed, but that would take far more work than it's worth and be easily detected, causing the perpetrator to be banned.

If you read my entire post then gave it some thought, you would see that I blamed the difference on openings. I stink at opening, but have a decent mind for mid game. That was my point. I don't profess to have an ELO of 1776, but if my openings were stronger then yes I would say I do. The nice thing about this estimator is it shows your potential. Playing a computer simply shows how you can't make it past the first 10 moves.

None of these points make a lot of sense.

I think you've developed some wrong ideas on the opening, you vastly overestimate the importance of memorising opening theory at the sub 2000 level. 

If you're not willing to challenge your own chess understanding and look for flaws then you're setting yourself up for very slow and difficult progress.

I scored 2350 +/- 150 a few days ago. Some have mentioned being timed out but there's no timer on the questions/puzzles. I did it over several hours, doing other things and coming back to it.

True.  I'm "only" an 1800-1900 daily player and my TT rating is only in the 1400's and my blitz rating sucks, so I am probably not the best example to base this on.   I'll tell you why there is such a divergence in my ratings though.   I am a very slow, deep-thinking player.   My strengths are defense, positional themes, pawn structures, middle game planning and endgames.  My weaknesses are my openings and tactics.  I'm not like most players, who are all about speed and tactics.   I prefer to take my time and find the best moves in my daily games, rather than play lots of blitz or bullet chess.  Not only does doing so make me a better overall player, but it leads to more victories.   I don't like to lose.  lol   Anyway, I scored an 1820 on the Elometer, because I took my time and found the best moves (most of the time).   Tactics Trainer, on the other hand, is timed.   The timer makes me rush my moves and I usually only find the 2nd or 3rd best move (which they don't give you any credit for) or it takes me too long to find the #1 move (and I lose points due to taking too much time).  That doesn't mean that my tactics suck or that I'm cheating in my daily games.  It just means that I am a slow, deep thinker, who only blunders when he's rushed.   That happens when you get to be 53 years old.  

Great website for massaging the egos of mediocre players like myself and JeffGreen. 

 1562.  I had no idea.

Everyone seems to get a number about 200 points higher that their chess.com rating.

1908. my live rating is in the 1100's.

Mediocre is a poor choice of words.  Mediocre means below average.  I am well above average (in the top 2-3% of all chess players).   I have won class D tournaments and came in 2nd in class C's (back when I was "only" a 1500-1600 player).   Right now, I'm sure that I could win a class B and be a factor in a class A tournament.  Therefore, I have proven myself to be well above "mediocre".   More like intermediate to advanced.  Speak for yourself.  I am an 1800+ player and have proven it with my tournament and daily game successes.   If anything, the ELOmeter rating was a tad low, at 1820.  I believe I'm in the 1850-1900 range now.   I've definitely gone up a class in the past 10 years.  I've noticed it in my own games, that I'm seeing things that I never saw before.  

Okay, you are just awesome then, Jeffy. 

ordinary...average

I suck at chess. But for an 1800 player to make claims like this? Really?

Thank you.   I've worked hard to get to the level I'm at now.   Statistically, I'm probably the best player in my small town of 20,000 people and about 20-25th in my county.   So, I'm not great, but I'm certainly not mediocre.  If you also count all of the people in the world who have never played a game of chess, I'd be in the top 1% of all people on the planet.   lol   I'll settle with intermediate to advanced.   I consider 0-500 to be a beginner, 500-1000 to be a novice, 1000-1400 to be mediocre, 1400-1800 to be intermediate, 1800-2200 to be advanced and 2200 and over to be Master.   Just my opinion, of course.

Jeffgreen, I assume your opinion is based on rated play .... could you offer a similar scale (just your opinion as I am curious) for blitz scores?

No, because I don't feel that blitz is an accurate indicator of overall chess strength.  Blitz is more about memorizing openings, tactics and fast thinking speed than classical chess is.   Blitz also lacks necessary endgame skills, most of the time, since the game is usually over on time before the endgame.   I consider blitz and bullet to be chess variants, rather than real chess.   Rapid is somewhere in between.  

2044

I've scored around 1560.  I play above that on chess.com by taking more time on moves than I took on that tedious test, and also using the analysis board to work out lines (which you can't do on that test).

You're not supposed to use an analysis board during chess.com games.  I'm pretty sure that's cheating (not sure about daily games).  Anyway, it's better to force yourself to look ahead several moves, without using an analysis board.   Then you'll be able to play that well in a real, OTB game.