Opponent not familiar with the 50-move rule + pre-moves = a win!

Thanks for your input Jolly.

Bregnt: One more remark and you're gonna be reported. Please be mature about this, for your own sake.

Reb's stats: 2454, 1836, 1200, 1200

check2008's stats: 1851, 1622, 1386, 1414

bregnt's stats: 1200, 1652, 1568, 1278

Reb > check2008 > bregnt

This is not something that can be argued - numbers don't lie.

It's fine if you say your ratings are provisional. I'll simply say mine are too, and then we've made no progress 

You haven't played a single turn-based game while I've only played Live standard game - you don't see me complaining do you?

You saying "You are simply an idiot" is not what we want here on chess.com. We can have an argument about morals, sure, but don't name call - that's silly.

On the other hand, we cannot have an argument about ratings. Why? Because ratings are numbers - they're either higher, lower, or equal than other numbers. You don't have to have a doctorate in math to figure that out.

When people want to find out who's better than whom, they place their cursor over someone's username and look at the number next to "Rating." 

My rating is higher than you're rating. This is a matter of fact. If you want to be considered better than I am, get a rating in any, ANY!!!, type of chess on here of your choosing, and make sure it's over 1851. Then and only then will you be rated higher than I am. It says "Rating" for a reason. Because that's what it is. A rating.

And you really had to say "You idiot", huh? Well, I warned you once. Not much I can do now. Consider yourself reported.

And when they see that bregnts rating says "Rating: 1646 (Live Chess - Blitz)" and yours says "Rating: 1851 (Turn-Based)", they realize that it would be comparing apples to oranges, and that to draw meaningful conclusions, they should look at the statistics displayed in your profiles.

And in the profiles, they see that the only categories where there is enough data to compare the two of you is blitz, where bregnts rating ater 142 games is 1646 (against average opp. of 1639), and yours after 117 games is 1386 (against average opp. of 1311). And since your rating chart seems to indicate that you play a lot of unrated games (no rating change after wins or losses), even this doesn't quite compare.

Bottom line: why don't you kids cut out the bickering and play against each other to figure out who is better. Or post your USCF ratings.

Your unbiased review is a fresh of breath air! I've a stupid question: You say my rating chart indicates I play a lot of unrated games. I do indeed play several unrated games, but I didn't know there was a rating chart to back it up. Where is it?

I just challenged bregnt to a game. 7 days to move, random color. If he wins, I lose 15 points. If I win, I gain 1 point. The burden I have for my rating! Hopefully he'll accept and we can at least have a better idea of who is the better player!

Edit: No, no, no, I can't do that, sorry. I just canceled my challenge. You see, although it may be unlikely, I don't want there to be any computer interference at all, from either of us. The tension between may very well lead to it! I see nothing wrong with a Live quick/blitz game though (but no long, for the same reason!).

Not that I'm exactly innocent, but isn't this getting a bit heated here?

Yes, Mustard, it is. Although he's been reported once and is about to get blocked - seriously, no name calling bregnt. Let's act our age 

If you're USCF rating is 1900, your Online and Live Long games should be around 2100 - don't say a word to me about this bgrent, because it isn't I who said it; Erik gives this as an estimate going between Elo and Gliko. Argue with him about it.

Point is, my rating is still higher. You may have a higher orange rating while I have a higher apple rating (something like that), but I have a higher average rating by quite a lot. 

My mind completely understands what Orangehonda said. Please don't say my mind is "simple." That's childish. (Or at least use better grammar when trying to insult! )

http://www.chess.com/livechess/stats/check2008/?type=Blitz

Ah', thanks, I'm blind. 

I've sent a request to have this topic locked. I for one can say I shouldn't have continued arguing. Hopefully bregnt can say the same. 

Cite. Cite cite cite. Here:

http://blog.chess.com/kurtgodden/elo-to-glicko-your-rating-explained

I just cited. Now it's your turn. 

Hey, I just realized you said I'm 49 points away from NM status, while you still have a loooong way to go. I gotta say, thanks 

Although you're sadly mistaken 

Come on Bregnt, let's play now on Live chess. I'm waiting 

... should I be expecting you now or tomorrow?

I'm gonna go take a shower.

I think  bregnt is a troll and you probably shouldn't argue with him. He does include a lot of insults with his arguments which are very immature and uncalled for.

Your idea of averaging ratings does not work however. One reason is that you are including some irrelevant numbers.  bregnt's 1200 rating in turn-based or correspondence chess does not reflect his playing ability, its just a number that chess.com arbitrarily gives people. I'm not sure that averaging ratings would ever work, even with relevant numbers.

At least that is how I see it.

If you really want to know, go ahead  and play a few games with him. We'll see what happens.

Thanks for the advice RDR75. As my parents always told me, "Don't feed the trolls."

If I see him in Live, I may play him a few times, see what happens. 

Locked at OP's request