The Chessy sperm: Are we chess bastards? (Not offensive)

(Read Whole! Only then would you judgmental folks understand the query.)

When I ask them about chess ratings, how to attain 2000, how to measure 2000, how is a 2000 better than a 1500- they say YOU ARE NAIVE, SON. CHESS RATINGS ARE RELATIVE. And then I actually realize their proposition; quite logical indeed! It is 'us' who are the formula for these ratings: the chess playing community! 

But then I wonder that there must be a single player, with all bias, who was provided this RELATIVE rating in an ABSOLUTE manner in the very beginning. The firstly rated chess god!

And then again I am forced to think that there must ONLY be this very priveleged player and nobody else, who is bestowed with the offering of an absolute rating ( If more than one player is given the starting numbers then it's just wrong because by the same basic reason, there are just no means to know the skill-difference between two players, and much more, the 'amount' of skill-difference between them).

And then I can conclude that Mr. ABSOLUTE fought it out with other underpriveleged players to gift them these ratings ( ANALYSIS -: Still, a question spins in my head like a splinter- If a certain 'Player 1' lost to Mr.Absolute was given (-100), then a 'Player 2', who also lost to Mr. absolute, would be given a (-100). OK, but now- Player 1 loses to a new Player 3 and Player 2 loses to a new Player 4 { because each and every player cannot be wrestled with Mr. Absolute, is it right? }. Now how much gain in rating shall be provided to Player 3 and Player 4? This is actually very complicated because if both of them are given the same boost, then it creates another Absolute! That is- Player 1 and Player 2 are considered to be equal here! { their ratings show the same but that can be utterly, heavily wrong. One can be an amateur and other an expert, both of them having just one trait in common- "LOST TO Mr. ABSOLUTE" } So, there is another assumption of absolutism taken here that these two must be at par.Yes, only that could make things simpler! Subsequently, there is a chain of absolute assumptions made... and made.. being diluted after every game of chess. The catch is - today we can make these assumptions because there are a hell lot of players in the scene and absolutes are diluted to relatives, but in the rudimentary stages, with the inception of chess ratings, all of this was pretty deceptive. I know there's something wrong there, but the picture is not clear in my mind... as if from a half-remembered dream { Guess I used the word 'inception' too many times that I recalled the movie's dialogue :P } .. Only if someone could oblige me and make me understand. )

I was happy with myself that I conquered a prevalent idea, to some extent, and squeezed out my own deduction! I inexorably concluded and now happen to believe that our ratings are affected by Mr. Absolute's chess prowess. Heavily! I know it doesn't matter today because now the relativistic ratings have been entrenched firmly and give precise understanding of our levels of play, but it was his rating which was the SOLE CONSTANT in calculating OUR ratings; like the pie (π) constant determining a circle's area.

I think I digressed from my 'SPERMY' theme. All I wanted was the disclosure of an identity. Like the branches of a tree stoop down in search of their roots, like the rivers follow an infinite path to their motherly oceans, anxiously, with that tantalizing optimism, and like a bastard (I don't happen to know a euphemism for this, sorry) wants to know the name of his father, I, WANT A REVELATION TODAY! WHO IS MR. ABSOLUTE? WHO IS THE ADAM/EVE OF CHESS? WHO IS MY CHESS FOREFATHER? { Sob, sob, I am a chess bastard :'(  } 

WHO IS THE PERSON WHOSE 'CHESSY-SPERM' DEFINES ME? NOT ONLY ME, ALL OF YOU BASTARDS! ( The one who knows the name escapes this tag! ) 

Mate just play chess for enjoyment its not there to excite agreesiveness.There are 12,000 plus players on this site alone. i am sure some of us have the SAME ranking score number . Mathematically we are all in rank position. No one is better ....just at  that "end " one player is ranked as winning the game.  You are stuck on .....not wanting to be beaten '   Ask yourself WHY ?  mr 100 %

        12,000 plus? I thought there were several million.

Hey Ronnee, man! That's why I made a note there- Read Whole!  I am not saying that the rating system is flawed, I am just seeking the name of the 1st player in the history of chess who was rated! By my logic, there should only be One. And I want to know about him; do u know about him? And yes, I had some basic problems in understanding the concept of chess ratings, that too I discussed above.. I just wanted an advice about all this stuff from experienced folks..  Is that aggressiveness? Peace out Ron

P.S. 12000 people must be online currently, Mr .001%   ( No hard feelings buddy :P)