The simple truth is that ratings from different sites are not comparable. I find that there are several sites which it is much easier to get a higher rating then here but what does it matter. If you hang in there eventually your rating and your playing strength is bound to improve. Use the tactic trainer and other means of study and it will speed things up. The thing you really want to increase is your playing strength. A rating is a reflection of your playing strength but only within a given site not comparing it from site to site.
Players here badly underrated
Sort:
Sagg-Bander wrote:
???? Patzer? I was talking about my Fide rating not my chess.com rating which isnt even 2200 or 2300, cause i did only play few games.
A master doesn't play like this.
Sagg-Bander wrote:
Yes that was a ridiculous game i admit. But it was 3 min blitz and my opppnent, i am not joking or saying this because i lost, was cheating. he uses an engine after he drops a piece on purpose. Problem was i didnt know that at the beginning and thought it would be an easy win. then i played total bullshit, thats true. Anyway its only one game.
Nobody would use an engine after dropping a piece. It's obvious that your opponent wasn't using an engine. It's silly to make excuses after losing.
Aug 31, 2015
0
#45
You could have started with 1200 points as a base rating. You chose to start at 800, have played 65 games and gained 143 points from 34 wins and 22 defeats. It all seems pretty standard. It's not enough games yet to be a stable rating, but it is a decent indicator of the level you are playing at.
Different sites have different players an different rating systems. A rating is only relavant relative to the site it is obtained on. USCF ratings are over-inflated compared to FIDE ratings over the board too - it's the same thing. You compare people's FIDE ratings with other people's FIDE ratings and the same for USCF.
Sagg-Bander wrote:
And yes even though i dont have a title my fide rating is at master strength. I do in no way care if you believe me, i guess when i would be you i wouldnt believe it too...
The way you play contradicts your statements.
Sagg-Bander wrote:
U are the most unsymphatic and idiotic guy ever met Patzer. he didnt just drop a piece. He did this on purpose, for the whole game he didnt think longer than 30 seconds, made every move instantly except the first 5 moves, those he played himself and gave a piece. i have enough experience on chess sites to know who is using an engine and i have 0 problems losing to a better player.
Idiotic? Look who's talking! If you played more carefully, you would've won! It's that simple.
Why did you start a thread asking for help because you were losing all your games?
Sagg-Bander wrote:
The way you talk tells ur an as s hole. And as i said i dont care what you think. I can easiely get to 2300 rating here too.
The way you talk shows that you're a hypocrite.
sirrichardburton wrote:
The only wise comment I have read in this topic. At least it is an attempt to give a reasonable explanation
The simple truth is that ratings from different sites are not comparable. I find that there are several sites which it is much easier to get a higher rating then here but what does it matter. If you hang in there eventually your rating and your playing strength is bound to improve. Use the tactic trainer and other means of study and it will speed things up. The thing you really want to increase is your playing strength. A rating is a reflection of your playing strength but only within a given site not comparing it from site to site.
Oh no! Not again. I never said that I am an underestimated Master, only that in other clubs I would beat players rated below 1000 without any effort.
Here: http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=1266112135
While my opponent was busy undermining my pawn structure I checkmated him in 9 moves.
To my fellow Italian who finds it amusing: love you too. In fact I hate Italy and Italians. I was living in England but I had to come back because of my elderly parents
And what do you find so funny, Sagg-Bander?
Wat een Belg! (translation for non-Dutch speakers: what an idiot. Yes, because in the Netherlands Belgian and idiots are the same thing).
Nobody2015, what have you gained by insuting Belgians? I'm sure you've gained nothing but a bad reputation.
Nobody2015 wrote:
And what do you find so funny, Sagg-Bander?
Wat een Belg! (translation for non-Dutch speaker: what an idiot. Yes, because in the Netherlands Belgian and idiots are the same thing).
Xenophobia isn't good.
stealing your time on facebook.gang of thieves
If we're going to be irrelevant then I'll just mention that Calvin Coolidge is the greatest leader in the history of the world due to his legendary ability to balance a budget and create conditions conducive for job and economic growth.
TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:
If we're going to be irrelevant then I'll just mention that Calvin Coolidge is the greatest leader in the history of the world due to his legendary ability to balance a budget and create conditions conducive for job and economic growth.
I know you're being sarcastic, but I think that's mostly true.
I'm overrated.
America needs another Coolidge. When bringing up great leaders people mention Thatcher, Abe Lincoln, Kennedy, FDR, Julian, Charlemagne(?), King James I, King David, King Solomon, Queen Elizabeth and David Ben-Gurion (despite his socialist leanings) but Coolidge is frequently forgotten. If not the best he’s at the very least the most underrated leader in world history. Ben-Gurion despite his economic philosophy was great in many ways as he convinced Germany to give Israel reparations for WWII and was very influential in the founding of Israel.
Emperor Julian is a favorite of mine, he wanted to rebuild the Third Temple in a gesture of good will towards the Jews, but an Earthquake happened during the process, which was God’s way of saying, “Your heart may be in the right place Julian, but it is the Messiah’s job to rebuild the Temple, not yours.”
Among the worst are Hitler, Ahab, Idi Amin, Pope Innocent III, Pope Gregory IX, and Stalin.
Somebody took a game out of the several hundreds I have played at chess.com and made a big fuss out of it. One of the two games where I blundered really badly.
In your last game, how many moves did it take you to lose a piece?
http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=1264812923
The one before that you lost your queen:
http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=1264718594