I'm not very good. My rating is only X.

As satire that was a very funny post.

As to the original post, I think inferiority complex exists in some people and it has nothing at all to do with chess.  Inferiority complex in chess is a symptom of inferiority complex in general, which is generally a symptom of low self-esteem.

Actually a tournament is an organized competition for a certain game or event. Why are you saying people below 1000 shouldn't play in tournaments?  If they're willing to pay to enter then they're supporting the organization, right?  If they really suck and get beaten every time, either they will keep coming back unprepared (which I really doubt since it's just throwing money away) or they will stop going and either improve or not improve.  In your last post you mentioned the fact that it bothers you that you would have to wait a long time after beating a terrible player.  Well, that sounds like a complaint for the tournament organizers, not for the people who you are easily beating.  Besides that, all the more time to practice tactics or whatever you need to do to get ready for the true competition.

 It's elitist.

I am a 2000 USCF player, but I always say (and believe!) that I'm not very good. It's not from a terrible self-esteem (I don't think), but because I look to people higher than me to keep myself motivated to improve my game and work hard at it.

Also, when you are 2000, you do begin to realize how much you actually suck, since you typically have to play in Open Sections :-)

I totally agree about weak players: I NEVER have any problem with a weak player playing in a tournament who is honestly trying to improve their game and gain experience. It IS rather pointless for weak players who don't have any desire to improve to keep playing, though.

My first USCF rating was 659. But right from the start (several months before my first tournament an on) I was deadly serious about chess. At this time, I slogged through The Soviet School of Chess by Kotov and Yudovich! Great games in this book, by the way.

 While I disagree with much of what you say, this part I agree with.  I can't imagine playing "up" in such a setting.  Ratings can be a nuissance, but one thing they do, when used for that purpose, is ensure reasonable pairings.  If there was a U1000 or a U1200 section and I (rated 732 right now) played in the "open" section instead, I could understand why an opponent would feel a bit ripped off.

You can rest assured I won't do that, and I can't understand why anyone would.

I also don't play in any tournament where I have to wait 4 or 5 hours between rounds.  I play in G/30 and G/45 tournaments.  I would consider a G/60, if it were close by, and cheap.

ETA:  And to quadrewple's point above, I don't udnerstand why TDs and/or organizers allow anyone who wants to to "play up".  The point of breaking up into sections is to ensure good games.  Why let someone mess that up?  Sure, if they are on the cusp, just 50 or 100 points before the break point, I would consider allowing it, but otherwise I would be inclined not to allow it.   (Now I'll have to check my rulebook to see if I have a choice.  I think it depends on how things were stated in the pretournament publicity.)

Chess ratings are a tool to match players of equal skill, and for that purpose they are invaluable (with chess ratings we play more challenging games more often, and so enjoy the game more; without chess ratings we would be playing more super-easy and impossibly-hard games, at random intervals, which would not be enjoyable).

That is all they are. They do not quantify a persons intelligence or worth in any way, although this seems to be a common misconception by chess players and non-chess players alike. What they do quantify is the time spent playing and studying chess.

OP, to combat the inferiority and superiority complexes that arise from chess ratings simply remind people of these thruths whenever you get a chance.

And here's another truth for you: enjoyment of chess comes from understanding. not winning. Winning is a bi-product of understanding, for sure, but if you only play to win, and don't care if you understand the why's and how's of a game, then, I would say, you are missing out on a lot of the enjoyment, not to mention a lot of other benefits, like improvement, like improved insight when spectating, like a better attitude toward your opponent and the social benefits from this, etc.

People who get upset by the ignorance of beginners forget that they were once that player themselves. If you have in your heart the desire to understand as apposed to winning, whenever you play, you cannot help but try to help these lower rated players whenever you might meet them - simple basic principles communicated to a beginner have the potential to dramatically improve their game.

If you've ever glanced at a chess position, then set yourself to analyse it for a time, and marvelled at how that position changes before your eyes, without any pieces moving - some squares start to blaze bright, a beautiful combination might materialise out of a forest of pieces, or you might see far into the future to a winning endgame that no-one else has seen - then you might just be an 'understander'. Who gives a %$#& about winning when every game you play, win or lose, creates such magic.

 I find that the word "tournament" often carries a weight that it doesn't deserve.

I prefer tournament play to club play for a couple of reasons, and the "organized" part is at the top of the list.  I know there will be lots of play and after a couple of rounds of a Swiss tourney, I'll almost certainly be playing someone near my own ability, if there are enough players and enough rounds.

The tournament I play in most frequently is G/30 rated quads played on a Friday night in a coffeehouse, so I'm almost always playing against people of approximately my own rating.  (It only bothers me a little bit that they are generally half my age.  Ok, a third.  Well, a lot of the time a fourth.  And all right there was one time that I played against someone one eighth my age, but he was really, really, good.)

 Absolutely!  I was thinking about an earlier comment from the poster who said, "Who has fun losing?" or words to that effect.  First of all, with  a rating of 732, I still have won more than half of the tournament games I played.  That's going to happen if there are other players roughly your own level.  Maybe it's a "glass half empty", vs. "glass half full" mentality.  However, more than that, when I see a beautiful move, that's just wonderful.  It's woth the effort of the tournament just to make that move. Even when I think I'm doing wonderful, and then my opponent springs a trap, that can be just as good.  The solution to the puzzle becomes clear in an instant.  OK, so you were on the wrong end of that particular puzzle, it can still be a beautiful thing.

 Never happened to me in a tournament.  I once left my back rank exposed in a won position.  Up by a queen and a rook, I had a mate in 1, except for one teensy weensy problem.

That wasn't exactly the sort of thing I had in mind, because he didn't really set me up for it.  I just got overconfident and didn't bother paying attention to the fact that he still had pieces on the board.  I'm much better now, though.  Back then my rating was only in teh 400s.

Don't sweat it; we're all dwarves admiring Beauty

I think if you spend 90% of your time comparing yourself to people better than you and only 10% of your time comparing yourself to people worse than you, you will find the perfect balance.

The game does NOT foster an elitist attitude; HUMANS do this!  Chess is just a game!  Like WGM Pogonina said:  Chess is not life!  Elitism is a poor attitude toward others!  Shows zero kindness or compassion!  Elitist thoughts beckon to "I am better than you, you shouldn't be here".  Fezzik, you are so wrong!  Showing greater skill is evidence of hard work, or a god-given talent!  You are mixing words!  Elitism comes from inside our own mind.  This approach towards competition is so lacking in humility!  How about that instead:  Chess is a humbling game! 

 I, personally, don't think ratings are elitist.  I think reasonabledoubt's description of who should and who should not play in tournaments is elitist.

However, I sympathize with someone who plays in the open section of a tournament with four hour rounds and ends up playing an 800 level player who offers no challenge, especially if that player has "played up" into the open section when there was a "U" section available.

Question for reasonabledoubt or anyone else who finds himself in that position often enough to be an annoyance.  Are there "low end" tourneys in your neck of the woods?  Ones that cater to the less serious?  My tourneys are like that.  Church basement, ten dollar fee, Saturday afternoon, no cash prize.  It might be, and I emphasize "might", that those annoying players go to the "serious" tournaments because there's no other game in town.  If that's the case in your area, here's a serious suggestion.  Host one.  Seriously.  It would do the Chess community a lot of good, and it might keep those annoying players out of the "good" tournaments.  Just a thought.  Lighting candles vs. cursing darkness and all that.

We need to develop far reaching calculative and tactical skills if we are to win tournaments.

I allways wonder what creates more feelings of inferiority ?

A low rating or not being able to recognize the underlying sarcasm of forum posts ?

GG! Well said!

Geez! I'm hearing some downright mean and nasty talk, definitely not the guys I would spend 4 hours playing a round of golf with. Far too grumpy.

Stay grumpy and let your crummy chess clubs stay small, even shrink.  Don't grow the game of chess. Keep all the children and moms far, far away. Who needs beautiful women hanging around a chess club anyway? Why bother to bring your son to a tournament?  Keep him at home to rot away playing mindless video games.

Yep. Let the game of chess die in your selfish little minds.

BTW, how could I possibly screw up your tournament? I'm a nice guy.   I know the rules. I would never yell CHECK! That's just stupid. 

Most here have seen my U1000 Live Chess games posted. Would you tell me to go home if I showed up to your tournament? 

Yes.

 I agree. Any idiot who's even read the rules should know that if some fool keeps yelling CHECK, CHECK, CHECK over, and over they can be made to forfeit the game, so I don't think it would be much of a problem.

Yes. The rules are far easier to understand than the game.

Well, heinzie won't let me play in his chess tournament. Oh well, I won't let him play in my golf tournament, nor my annual yo-yo tournament.