My rating on here is usually between 1650 and 1750. My USCF rating is 1952 (provisional through 17 games). Needless to say, there is a huge difference between playing online where you can be watching TV, eating, making breakfast, etc. and playing versus a live opponent with money and/or ratings points on the line, with much longer time controls. If anyone claims they are better online than OTB, that is strange (almost to the point of being laughable).
Frankly, when I think of my rating on chess.com, my thought is "It's online chess, who the hell cares?" I think that is most players' perspective on the matter.
Well... my refutation to this is just look at the GMs at 1900 on this site... you have to achieve a rating of 2500 normally, so....
I look at online ratings as just as valuable or valueless as OTB ratings. It seems like most of us are not going to play major OTB tournaments, so this is it. But I understand why people pick their highest rating as their "real" rating;)
I think I'm better than my online live rating of 1500, OTB. I crush USCF 1500s OTB, and I seem to play at a 1800ish strength based on the players' ratings that I've beat and had equal games. I am unrated OTB because I don't really know how to play in OTB rated tournaments or against people my strength. I totally believe when someone says, " Im better than my online rating, " just because of the huge discrepancy I see in my own play. Could I beat 1800 live standard players on chess.com? Maybe? There are an awful lot of titled players with 1700-1900 live standard ratings here.
There is no substitute for doing it, because OTB is a very different experience than online. You may be better, you may be worse.
When I play OTB my adrenaline and heart rate is up in a way that just doesnt happen in front of a computer. I put a lot more into it.
What I was saying is that I crush people OTB that have my Online Live rating. My Live Standard rating is ~1500 and I crush people with 1500 USCF OTB.
I find the games I play online much harder than the ones I play against rated opponents in the meat space. They've been all unrated games. I even have a pretty good score against the one expert level player I've had the chance to play.
I just think that my OTB USCF would be higher than my chess.com Live Standard 1500.
I'm in a similar position as you. I've played against players with OTB ratings, but not in tournaments (hoping to change that soon). My chess.com live standard rating tends to hover around 1375, but I play more like a 1500-1600 OTB. Standard ratings on here are deflated for whatever reason. I routinely see listed OTB ratings 200-400 points higher than their counterpart standard chess.com ratings. On the contrary, online (turn based) ratings on here are inflated to a similar extent. Often 200-400 points below a person's OTB.
That's a different matter though. I think someone who thinks they are "better than their rating" thinks they lose due to elements they don't consider as much a part of the game. For example, often being in a winning position and then blundering due to nerves, loss of focus, lack of energy etc. That's the most likely reason I can think of, and I've claimed it of myself before... who knows if it really means anything. I guess it's the feeling you have a lot of "potential," if you fix a tiny mistake or a few loose bolts, you'd be much better rated than you currently are. Valid or not of an excuse, that's probably the reasoning behind this.
Of course people have potential, but they mean their current playing strength since they apparently feel too good for "noob" advice. If you demonstrate that you lack an understanding of basics regularly then you need to shore those up. Can't string together sentences when you don't know the ABCs right?
It's more like, you're a pretty good writer but occasionally you don't spell a couple words right, so it "ruins" your writing and people don't think you're as good.
I know I'm better than my rating. But that's because when I played my first tournament, I lost so many games, it's not even funny. My rating got plummeted to 902 or something like that. I have to work extra hard to get it back above 1200, and then some more to the around 1700 where I belong.
No, if you are at 900 that is where you belong. You earned that rating fair and square.
If you belonged at 1700 you would not have lost all those games.
That was back then, like, 6 years ago. I've been improving.
I guess that insight also comes when you get good enough to realize, you're not that good. At 1200 you blunder. A lot. You give your pieces away and mis simple tactics. At 1600 you still blunder, but you're not giving pieces away in 1 move tactics. But you also see that you don't stand a chance against a 1800 or 2000 rated player. You know enough to realize that you're not that good. I believe there is even a psychology term for just that effect.
Nice picture ^_^ Is it just a picture or is it from an anime?
The law of averages can't be dismissed... If he keeps playing like an 1100 then he's an 1100... lol
If every game I play at the bar or the coffee shop were rated, I'd be better than my rating, because I resign for lots of reasons. The football game started, the line we were playing started to get dull, my opponent played 1.a4. Chess should be played for primarily aesthetic reasons, so anything that muddles that up is more than enough reason to drop some rating points.
This is not usually my style to reply in this manner....
But this is the BIGGEST load of crap I've ever heard!! Chess should be played for aesthetic reasons?!?! Who the hell taught you how to play? I think you've seen American Beauty one too many times.
Chess definitely has artistic aspects..but if you are resigning games because your opponent messed up your beautiful 'chess painting' with a pawn lever...blah, I'm done responding to this.
It happens because a lot of people don’t count the games where they lose due to a blunder, but they do count the games they win from their opponents’ blunders.
Ratings can be dicey. Let's say you play someone 400 points higher than you and beat them. Wow, you must be much better than your own rating. BUT...that person may have played few rated games, and could easily be over-rated.
The same goes when you lose to someone 400 points lower than you. They could be under-rated from a lack of playing time, or maybe they took a lot of time off from rated play and just got better before coming back.
I would argue that mid-level ratings are way too specific, and that anyone in the 1200-1700 range can beat or lose to anyone else in the 1200-1700 range. It's a huge catch-all for the majority of players and it's pretty much a dice throw on how actually good or bad someone is in that range.
It's only once you get close to Class A and higher that ratings tighten up, and better reflect predictable outcomes. An 1850 player is unlikely to beat a 2050 player (much less so than a 1400's chances against a 1600). The 1800 player's climb to Expert won't be that easy.
It pretty much comes down to this, ratings-wise:
Beginners - anyone under 1200
Club Players ("Intermediates") - 1200 - 1700
Advanced Players - 1700 - 2000
Experts and Masters and Norms, oh my...
Does anyone else ever hear other players say this? I know a guy who is 1100 who consistently and convincingly loses to a guy who is almost 1300 and kids who are 1200... yet somehow thinks he's better than his rating! I'm sorry, but if you play like an 1100 and obtain 1100 results, then you are an 1100.
I'd love to believe that I'm at least expert strength, but the thing is if I were I wouldn't have a big minus score against people over 2000 with only a handful of wins and draws here and there.
The first step in chess improvement is self-honesty.
Unfortunately, the truth hurts a lot for some.
Nice picture ^_^ Is it just a picture or is it from an anime?
It's from Higurashi no Naku koro ni.
if you are right your rating will increase at one point or another. no need to worry about rating.
worry about playing your best chess. rating is just a number.
However rating is in most cases more right than you want it to be.