My rating is 676. I've played 10+ games here and over 30 in real life. I have yet to win.

I believe there was a player on here who was rated 0.

How bad can you be at chess?

really bad.

see here.

Lol trigs. I am so capable of falling for that same level of "trap" at live chess.

I believe you are referring to the great timmaylivinalie who is to chess as Andy Kaufman was to Elvis impersonators.

Very bad. After nearly twelve online games and five real games I've only ever won once. My ratings a 592, it used to be a 900 something but then it went down. I just started to learn how to play but a beginner can't be that bad can they? Then again I concentrate better on actual live games because nothing is there to distract me. Still, it does help gain experience.

Technically, a player that only knew the rules of chess and nothing else would probably have a rating of 0 (they would merely make random moves: which, i will pressume, could be beaten by almost any stragedy)... If somebody knew the rules and always captured peices when they are left en prise (nothing more, nothing less) you would probably have a rating of 400. 

The great thing about chess under 1000 (rating) is that you can improve rapidly -- 0 to 600 in a matter of days (with a bit of careful study).

Just stick at it: you will win eventually.

I would rate it a bit higher blackadder -- if all you played were random moves but didn't leave anything en-prise and always took an en-prise piece you'd be rated close to if not at 1000.

Err, that includes knowing the pieces values (pawn, knight, bishop, rook queen = 1,3,3,5,9).  If you don't drop an exchange or trade a knight for a pawns AND not leave anything en-prise and win material immediately after it's left for you to win, you'd be about 1000 even with random moves in between.

Heisman says no one under 1600 checks on every move the immediate threats, checks, and captures.  Sure a 1400 or 1500 will do it some or most moves, but Heisman says do it every move, and you're already class B basically.

That might depend on whether you could accidentally mate via random moves before you forced your opponent to capture all of your pieces.

I just started and i already have a rating of 1010, I think.

It is somewhat interesting to set up two computers in chessmaster to make 100% random moves and see how long it takes for them to checkmate each other. It is also the best way to gamble for pennies (I am a bad influence on the youngsters).

It would probably end in a draw 99% of the time...

suppose we are left with a Q+K (white) vs K endgame. 

With white to move, there are perhaps 20+ possible moves, to which, black may have (max) 8 replies. Now White must mate in 50 moves, avoid three-fold repetition and stalemate.  Even a forced mate in 2 would only have a probablity of 1/40! (that is, assuming on both moves there are 20 legal moves)

If we gave white more material (e.g Q+R+R+N+K vs K), then there would be more legal possible moves (say 40), the extra material would increase the probability of checkmate but also stalemate!...thus, white ending up ahead significantly more material might still fail to mate!

In the middle game, I should think mates would be even rarer, what is, for instance the probability that white moves his Queen and bishop to develop a mate threat? (1 in 40 perhaps) what is then the probability that white actually delivers checkmate? on his next move (1 in 20 ...20x20x20=8000) subtract from this the possibility that black might defend (e.g suppose there are 5 legal moves that prevent the mate threat, then there is a 5/20 chance it will be blocked)

I'm no good at maths, and these figures might well be wrong, but it seems to me that if two players make completly random moves the probabilty of checkmate occuring in a game is incrediably low.  

I'm quite curious to test this now.

The only time I stand a decent chance against players with similar ratings is in a 15-20 minute game.  Anything below 5 minutes and my pieces are just food.  If you play on a regular basis, say a few games a day or so on average, how long should it take before you recognize patterns fast enough to play well, especially after about 10 opening moves?

i'm the same. 5 minutes or lower (without increments) and i'm crap. i need at least 8-10 minutes (and usually with increments) to play a decent game.

MAH LORD!

 I did that once.. with chessmaster I think.. I turned down all the settings and forced the computer to avoid draws.. (so you didn't get pointless draws by repetition) and the games just lasted around 70-80 moves when they checkmated basically to avoid drawing.  I'm not sure what that proved.

 I have the same problem when I go to my local chess club, everyone wants to play 5 minute games. Occasionally I can talk someone into a 10 minute game, heaven forbid that I should ever get to play a more reasonable length. I find 5 minute games actually to be detrimental to my game: they reinforce bad habits I've been trying to erradicate

Can't you get the longer games you want by entering club tournaments, leagues, teams etc.? A lot of people only play longer games with some sort of purpose beyond the game.