There's a big difference between the 1100 who says this and loses to 1200's, and the 1100 who says this because he had to forfeit 100 concurrent online games when he went into the hospital for a month.
Sometimes, it's true. Sometimes, it's not. All the time, who cares? You're as good as the moves you make on the board.
I'm talking about OTB ratings though.
It seems like every time I beat somebody rated higher than me in tournament play, they claim I'm better than my rating.
If people are saying that Bigpoison then your rating will catch up with your playing strength soon enough. What if someone dropped out of chess at 1200, read Chirnov's Logical Chess, My System, Turning Advantage into Victory in Chess, Fundamental Chess Endings, and Kotov's Think Like a Grandmaster, so covering all their basics, do countless tactical drills, and has a coach. They do this for years (replacing the previous books with more advanced ones such as specialized endgame and pawn structure books such as for isolated d-pawn positions and rook endings respectively), and have a playing strength of 2000, then they crush everyone effortlessly at a novice section and rise in rating very quickly.
For the five people in each city who maintain OTB ratings, yeah, it's probably pretty much true that they're full of shit.
Still hard to imagine it's worth caring that they've got delusions of grandeur, though.
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.
So I should resign as soon as someone plays a pawn break forcing the destruction of my beautiful pawn chains? =(
This happens if you use blunders as an excuse for losing games.
The law of averages can't be dismissed... If he keeps playing like an 1100 then he's an 1100... lol
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.
I would be a grandmaster if I could just stop making mistakes. I also break 70 when I play golf, as long as I don't count about 35 bad shots per round.
I would be a grandmaster if I could just stop making mistakes. I also break 70 when I play golf, as long as I don't count about 35 bad shots per round.
LOL. Maybe chess should incorporate the "mulligan" option like in golf 
I have the feeling it's the other way in my case. I have come from 1200+ to 1600 today in about 6 weeks. I bought a book and started studying it, and yes, I learned things from it. So I expected to become a bit better. But I have also been playing a couple of people a lot and I a bit stronger than them. Not much, but enough to win 90% of the time. I think that has inflated my rating. Then again, I did win from a 1600+ but he blundered a bit. I took advantage of it. But there was a time I too thought I was better than my rating... if it weren't for the blunders... So now I try to make less blunders :P
I'm worse than my rating. Most of my wins were just lucky. :-)
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.
You sound worse than your rating
Being better than your rating makes no real sense unless someone got a bit rusty or aged and therefore don't have the calculation skills they used to. Had Spassky retired after losing the title to Fischer he'd be much better than his rating 
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.
You sound worse than your rating
I don't think I have a rating.
I don't think I have a rating.
1463 here. It is pretty funny though, when you said you play for "aesthetic reasons", and probably quit when the game is not beautiful enough for you
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.
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.
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.