Is The Rating Really The Picture?

Does ratings give an accurate picture of the players? Its probably the same case with half the players on this site, but i know someone who tries to avoid higher rated players. i know another who plays higher rated people, but thinks his rating matters and makes the games unrated.

If he thinks his rating matters why play unrated? Then it no longer means anything.

I think of it as a way to match up equivalent skill levels, nothing more.

Your rating is just a statistical artifact created by your performance results against people who also have ratings. Aside from mild ego boosting (or crushing), they are mainly good for pairing tournaments.

 yes but from that pool of players, right ?

there is nothing ridiculous to what I said.

Over time all random variables should even out, resulting in a reasonably reliable predictor of game outcomes.

I know but sometime you can't help being intimidated by higher raters

If it helps any, gathering from the above posts, I reached over 1900 online after the first year playing.  My deviation was very high at the time, if I won I would jump 20 points against a rated player 100-200 points higher, but when I hit the 1900 mark, I lost to a high 1800's player and my rating dropped something like 40 points; maybe due to very few games played.  The increase/decrease helped me get to that level, and now I am slowely getting back to a true rating of around 1700 online (+/-)

A player that was caught cheating declared himself a 1600 USCF, but his online rating here was over 2500.  His live chess rating was between 1300-1400 rating depending on the category.  That would draw suspicions, nevertheless.

It is not the exception, but generally your live rating is roughly 300 points lower than your online rating.  I think the forum starter was trying to determine strength of players at chess.com even without a FIDE rating.... just look at the live ratings and compare them to online.  Players will typically have a higher rating online, the game is slower and players are able to articulate their thought process into, simply, better move selections without a clock warping their brains.

The Sun was reflecting into my eyes.

but some times your rating decreases from time.  now that wouldn't be true

Short answer-

Yes

but time is part of chess it could still be accurate, right?

There are peaks and valleys in chess; depending on a player's motivation or concentration during these times.  This happens to all people at all levels of life. For instance, do we move the chess pieces because we want to move them, or do we move the pieces because we have to? (Obligatory games)  Therefore, is moving pieves at chess.com an interest or a job?  (Some people have a 200 games going at once.) That can't be that much fun, however, people do prove me wrong a lot of times.  

I agree how can anyone elevate thier game skills if they never play an opponet at a higher level they're just fooling themselves

The purpose of a rating is to ensure that when pairing opponents, everyone will get the best game.  The best game outcome is 2 players who play at roughly equal strength.

Why is the best outcome for pairing opponents equal strength?  If you go down the slippery slope, imagine the following matchup over 100 games: Kasparov vs. a normal 6-year old child who just learnt the rules.  Both are assumed to be playing for the win.  Is this fun for Kasparov?  No.  His mind would be so idle he would probably rather be doing anything - after half of these games he'd probably start going insane.  Is it fun for the 6-year old?  No.  His opponent is crushing him so badly, he doesn't even have a chance to make the types of mistakes that will allow him to learn and improve.  This is a soul-crushing grind that will ensure he never plays chess again at the end of this ordeal.

So, anyone who cheats to obtain higher rating points is doing themselves a disservice.  The optimum opponent is the one who shares the same (true) ability level as your own.

Any players above 1700 are chess players, they all want to improve their skill. Players at very low level are just game players. To them chess is just like monopoly or similar games where players will try to accumulate "scores" using any possible strategy. And that's just their strategy to avoid score/rating decrease when they aren't sure the strength of their opponent.

Different issue is with higher rated players who play unrated games against low rated opponents. There is a good reason to do that (beside avoiding unnecessary risks), which is to keep the statistics as meaningful as possible.

Statistics are important. A player may have 2500 rating with average opponent rating of 1900 and a winning percentage of 85%. In this case, 2500 is not his "true" rating (yet).

Yes you are right about the deep issue, but aren't most chess players have the same issue? Even a well GM was known to be a cheater...

And the possible reason is not only to gain false satisfaction (this is a permanent cheater), but also to avoid painful defeat (this is a part time cheater). If the defeat will be so painful, why not avoid it if you can?

Another thing I don't understand about chess players here is: how could it be offending or unethical to post a public game just because one side is a looser (so you have to erase the player name from the game). Grow up boys. Kasparov wouldn't mind if you post his defeat against Polgar. Isn't it clear why people cheat? They have so many issues

That's when you post your game for analysis or something. Some people think that it is more ethical to delete the player's name if he is the looser in the game. For me, names along with date and rating are part of useful statistics.

There is a saying that goes: A wiseman learns from someone's mistakes, A fool learns from his own mistakes.

The problem is, learning chess is very difficult. Often, learning from own mistake is really the only one that works. May be because it is so painful that you can't forget?

Seriously, when you loose your games, the cause of the losses is usually typical. It is your weakness. Only by knowing your weaknesses and then do the necessary things to fix it you will improve significantly.

Actually, tournaments are NOT paired so everyone gets the best game.  If that were the case you'd play someone with a similar rating to yours every round, or at least to start out.  But that's not how it works.  I've had to play people 600 points above me in round 1 of a tournament.  And a couple of times I somehow managed to get a draw against that player, and had to play ANOTHER player 600 points above me in round 2.  This is because the tournament is paired to find a winner in a fair manner.  People who win play against each other because otherwise you'd have a bunch of people with perfect records at the end.