I only managed to get to page 4 and not sure if anyone mentioned it. Isn't intentionally lowering your rating considered as sandbagging?
my mind is blown that any chess player could be below a 1300
Sort:
MSC157 wrote:
I only managed to get to page 4 and not sure if anyone mentioned it. Isn't intentionally lowering your rating considered as sandbagging?
Yeah. SOmeone mentioned it and the OP tried to deny that is what he was doing.
... In a survey conducted by the group of psychologists, people who partake in so-called trolling online showed signs of sadism, psychopathy, and were Machiavellian in their manipulation of others and their disregard for morality. ...
(link)
I'm 15 years of age and I'm rated about 900, because i have only been playing chess for a short while and I don't really read up on it, it's just a casual game. Some people can play chess better than others and need less practice, and some people are better at maths than other people etc etc, it's life.
Is this guy still around? We already had to run him out of vote chess...he has the social skills of a toddler. Maybe we need a thread about chess players with big egos and no common sense, because it's harder to understand than how a relative ratings system has to have as many low rated members as high rated members by definition.
miranda_please wrote:
simple answer: too much playing, not enough studying.
Observations that are accurate and/or insightful are not welcome.
Im 16 and im quite bad at chess, although i am really good in science and maths. Its just life and i am not really bothered at being bad because i still have a good time playing.
So, I've read a little the comments and I and everybody can congrat Kasporov_Jr on being officially the A55H0LE of Chess.com
All my congratulations on being "un gros imbécile"
Apr 19, 2014
0
#110
just a game so maybe people don't care about their rating as much. Only my chess960 and bullet is under 1300...
I just wonder why people always pick the most extreme and ridiculous opinion they can think of to get a discussion going.
Who are you to decide the chess threshhold of the world? Seriously? It is not ridiculous to be below 1300 as a player...
I have hit 1300s several times, then had a rough couple of matches and dropped back down to 1250s. Bottom line: This is not ridiculous. People mess up; they make mistakes.
I have a PhD in Mathematics (ie not just stupid) and have played about 5000 games on chess.com, and hovered between 1300 and 1400 most of that time, and am about 1650 for online chess. So why haven't I improved? I am not sure, but I think the issue is I pretty much just play for enjoyment, and don't do any serious studying. I think that is probably the case for a lot of players.
With proper diet and exercise and the right kind of training, one day I will get that third digit in my rating.
t_rich02 wrote:
I have a PhD in Mathematics (ie not just stupid) and have played about 5000 games on chess.com, and hovered between 1300 and 1400 most of that time, and am about 1650 for online chess. So why haven't I improved? I am not sure, but I think the issue is I pretty much just play for enjoyment, and don't do any serious studying. I think that is probably the case for a lot of players.
that is it precisely. anyone who focuses strictly on improving their rating can improve it. some of us just play for fun
Apr 19, 2014
0
#116
The older and wiser you get you realise just how much of an idiot you were when you were younger and thought - because you were apparently winning at something - that this maybe made you better or superior to the others around you.
.. then you grow up - mature - and (maybe!) gain some actual insight into the human conditon. That is - skill and expertise and being better at something is completely relative ... so much so to be completely meaningless.
In other words.. the OP KasparovJR (or whatever his name is - it doesnt matter) .. is another egotistical and clearly immature kid who one day will realise how incredibly, unbearably, gob-smackingly idiotic he is at many many things in life.. chess included.
Of course, Magnus Carlsen is a "complete moron" at too many things to list! What's he like at playing violin?
.. and of course .. in life you have to be humble .. if you're not life will eventually remind you of the reasons that you should be!! No one likes an egotistical wanker.. and its a long life to be lonely! ;)
Apr 19, 2014
0
#117
Kasporov_Jr wrote:
Y0_Bro wrote:
Kasporov_Jr wrote:
Y0_Bro wrote:
Kasporov Jr i think i played you at nationals when i was like 6.
lol we might have, we have the same age. that was my very first nationals in Kinder!
Yeah it was mine also, I was in 1st grade though I think.
yeah i checked it lol pretty cool knowing someone i played years ago landed in the same thread here in this website lol nice
awww! are you guys gonna get married? you have a lot in common...don't let this moment go!! you never know what might happen...
Ok. Lets see. Online Chess 1242 Everybody! Look! This is true! It's on his profile!
Wow... My mind is blown that any chess player could be below 1300! Really? This is just stupid,and even more when you are below the rating you think is low.
P.S,LOL^
Which brings us to the question: 1300 at the age of 6 (over 10 years ago) is an indication of talent, no doubt. Over ten years later, still has not achieved master?
I started playing chess a couple of months ago. I work and I'm a mom. I'm also taking an 8-week class in my career field. I am learning slowly. I'm only rated 800ish, but that will improve. I don't learn as quickly now that I'm almost 50. I try to spend a little time each week reading about chess. Not everyone has the time or desire to study though.
Here.s looking at you baby . see your own face in the irror? Are you snow white's step mother ? Watch out for the dwarfs there out to get you.............mirror mirror on the wall.