Your a lonley man who get's bullied at work and wants to take it out on people. Offending a chess.com moderator was a very bad move. maybe your not as smart as you seem.
How bad is a 227 rating in rapid? Be brutally honest please
Sort:
neatgreatfire wrote:
Waterstone33 wrote:
He is sus.
no u
Uh, no.
You made 4 blunders here.
1. Offended a chess.com mod.
2. Offended me.
3. Didn't appoligize
4. Started this fight up again.
5. arguing about a pointless topic
Waterstone33 wrote:
2. Offended me.
3. Didn't appoligize
yes because offending people and not “appoligizing” is very important on the internet
I was saying, if he offended me and reallized it, he could at least turn arond and be done with it.
it’s the internet... deal with it or leave
Sep 16, 2022
0
#88
Ok, I have read the entire forum, and here’s what I see. It began with a person asking if his rating was bad. Some people, believing him to be a troll, took him up on his request to be “brutally honest” and were somewhat mean. This began a discussion on whether a certain word is a slur, ending with a moderator removing the word from all posts and reminding members to be polite and kind.
Now, a few more members offered encouragement and advice to the op. knighticz then quoted the moderator’s post, saying that he “needed to go cry about the slur somewhere else [sic].” Waterstone33 and neatgreatfire asked why knighticz was complaining about a site’s rules, when he was voluntarily using the site. knighticz told them to, again, “cry about it” as well as saying that “I’m the best, I’m always right, I always win [sic].”
knighticz and Waterstone33 are then antagonized by each other. Neither are very nice (apologizes to both of you, but it’s the truth). Conclusion, end the conversation. Neither of you will agree, and this will get you no where. I understand both of you are offended by the other person, but if you cannot agree, then you should put this aside for now until you feel able to have a more polite conversation about it. I don’t wish to blame either side, or anyone else involved in the conversation. I’m just trying to state the facts. This argument is not even the point of this forum topic.
Sep 16, 2022
0
#89
TheSwissPhoenix wrote:
it’s the internet... deal with it or leave
I’m any situation, the internet is not an excuse to offend someone, and then not apologize. It is true we may have to deal with this sometimes, but it’s not an excuse. Or are you even saying it’s an excuse? I don’t want to misinterpret.
Oh. This was very insightful. I think everyone needed to hear that.
Sep 16, 2022
0
#91
It's like playing with a goat. It is as difficult for your opponent to loose as me beating the world chess champion. ( Joke ), More seriously, just train yourself and it is 100% sure that you gonna improve 
Oh yeah.
haze0616 wrote:
How about 1900 is it good
No
Sep 17, 2022
0
#94
Accidentally walking into mate in 1 goes far higher, I can assure you of that.
TechiesUL wrote:
That's the rating I would expect most people to accidentally walk into mate in 1.
Kramnik, Magnus, and Ivanchuk all blundered mate-in-1 OVER THE BOARD, let alone online. 227s probably blunder, on average, at least a couple of mate-in-1s a game.
Close to 500 rating now.
Still low, but getting better slowly
Sep 17, 2022
0
#97
Who cares about rating on Chess.Com the whole site is donkey town, it’s very suss for awhile
Sep 17, 2022
0
#98
SmithsChips wrote:
Who cares about rating on Chess.Com the whole site is donkey town, it’s very suss for awhile
Yeh. I dont care about rating too. Onlie ratings aren't accurate becuz of connection lossed and the fact that u have to go to the bathroom or something like that
I am one win away from a 500 rating
the pressure is insane. I need a bit of rest
If you noticed, i said "may god bless your day". What you said was wrong, my friend.