I'm better than my rating...

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;)

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.

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? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_averages

Just sayin'

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...

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.

It's far easier to believe people who say they are worse than their rating.  It's just that nobody does.

Thank god, because it was tedious.

I don't have to play for the same reasons you do.  If you play junk against me, I have better things to do with my life.  If I think we might play a good, interesting game that might turn into something worth remembering, then that's something worth pursuing.  Since rating points mean less than nothing to me, I'm free to pursue this goal without reservation, and to get up and walk away if it suits me.

Chess players are weird.  Life's too short to suffer through a dull game.