That should not be answered, who cares, someone can't play chess well?
Lowest rating ever....
Sort:
No i just thought it would be interesting to know..why shouldnt it be answered??? This is a chess community and we should be get to know our neighbors more..
Ratings are only important to the chess player concerned, I think its the way the player conducts his play, that is more important to me.
Mar 24, 2008
0
#5
We dont need to create a post for this...just look at the "View Players" link...you can see who is highest and lost ranked and everyone in between....
Why do you care who is the lowest ranked? Is it so you can boost your ego by feeling happy you're better than them? Be more concerned about your game...
Yeah I agree - pointing out the lowest ranking would point out who the member is - if you want to know just look, no need to post messages about him/her!
All of you are being silly. It's a legitimate curiosity, and everyone has checked.
 scorpion_private | 536 | 0 (0%) | 11 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 6 days ago | Challenge! |
 Kirbo | 531 | 0 (0%) | 8 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 34 days ago | Challenge! |
 chessking90 | 521 | 0 (0%) | 1 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 2 months ago | Challenge! |
 holyhellbird | 521 | 1 (8%) | 12 (92%) | 0 (0%) | 10 days ago | Challenge! |
 LOVELYTIGER | 514 | 6 (3%) | 177 (97%) | 0 (0%) | 2 months ago | Not Available |
 kevinbulls | 481 | 0 (0%) | 2 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 24 hours ago | Challenge! |
 kasperski_SC | 469 | 0 (0%) | 4 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 3 days ago | Challenge! |
 maggot | 433 | 0 (0%) | 32 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 21 days ago | Challenge! |
 stEin | 431 | 5 (10%) | 45 (90%) | 0 (0%) | 40 days ago | Challenge! |
 mimarsinan | 333 | 0 (0%) | 5 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 14 hours ago | Challenge! |
 timmaylivinalie | 223 | 13 (3%) | 359 (96%) | 3 (1%) | 2 hours ago | Challenge! |
 Polgar0 | 169 | 18 (6%) | 272 (93%) | 1 (0%) | 2 hours ago |
I think we can assume that those who have not been active for a while have simply timed out in all the games that they were engaged in.
And I think the worst two players do it out of jest.
I agree w/ Rael: it may not be the most polite query, it is an interesting one. Not sure what it tells you though. For example, ;ooking at Polgar0's games (the current unfortunate soul w/ the least chess.com rating), most of them seem like timeouts. Looks like he's only played out a few games in his short tenure here.
I think KGB got to Polgar, and sadly there's no internet in Syberia...
|'|
Mar 24, 2008
0
#11
mimarsinan333 0 (0%) 5 (100%) 0 (0%) 14 hours ago Challenge! timmaylivinalie223 13 (3%) 359 (96%) 3 (1%) 3 hours ago Challenge! Polgar0169 18 (6%) 272 (93%) 1 (0%) 3 hours ago
Lowest rankings right now on chess.com
No its not for my ego..nor to point anyone out...Like i said i thought it would be interesting to kno..just out of curiosity...plus i wanted to kno how low a rating could go...like does it go to negitives and stuff...sorry to offend any1...but i didnt think it was heartless thread to post..
wow... i probably know how people get high ratings now...
I agree with Richman. We just have curiosity. Is that bad?
What is the current lowest rating on chess.com? Or what is the record lowest rating?