The curious case of 1200: The Expert's rating

I meant he lost some earlier games or so and then he is just on massive tilt and throws the next.

I'm not 1200 in Rapid here as I've been floating around 1050-1090 I got back into Chess a few weeks ago before that I played casually on Lichess around a year ago and managed to reach around 1500 on there with no real study just learning a few openings and playing a lot and 1500 on Lichess is around 1200 here I'd say so I wouldn't regard that as an expert or hump. I know I could attain a higher rating if I put in more hours and studied even a little.

I think the real hump in Chess comes at around 1400-1600 at that point you probably need to start looking more into studying theory and analysing games with a fine tooth comb and perhaps get a coach but below that rating you'll see a lot of mistakes you can capitalise on like opponents hanging pieces at around 1500 I'd say most players have a solid understanding on chess and won't blunder/hang as much but they will still lack tactical knowledge needed to progress further.

I'd say 1200 is a fair starting point for me it feels like it's a slight step up from a beginner but slightly below an intermediate player.

It doesn’t say your account is banned anywhere.

There are people who lie. There are people who troll. There are also people are are simply delusional. I'm partial to the third option for your case, but who knows? You aren't that different from the "chess.com is run by bots" guy. You're a bit higher rated, but your claims are not much less absurd. 

The games you claimed were against such high level players don't say much. We have little info on what their actual ratings were or whether they even cared about their game with you. Even with the assumption you were being honest, there's little the games say. 

But let's look at the chess.com games you posted. The 1700 played solidly and then forgot how to count and lost a pawn. They had a drawn endgame but made a huge blunder by locking up the pawns where their king wanted to get in and lost. The two of you completed all of your moves in less than 5 minutes apiece, and they blitzed their way into their loss. They had plenty of time to think through their endgame given how much time was on the clock, but they didn't bother to think through the consequences of their move, which happens in speed chess. It was tight, but they're the ones who screwed it up. It happens.

The 1400 did nothing impressive. You're a 1200-1300 player, you are expected to do better than what, 1 in 3 games? 1 in 4? I don't remember the number stated by others offhand, I'd have to go find it. But you will win some games. Guess this was one of them. They're going to have weaker games like any other player and lose to worse players. Their game vs you was one example of that. 

As far as evidence of super-play, the 1200 game is a joke. You both made passive moves and traded all your pieces with little expectation of any real challenge to each other. I would have happily played for the win in either position, time permitting. Players screw up endgames all the time. Checking the clocks of that game you were probably going to win that game on time, either because they literally ran out or because they blunder first in time trouble. That it ended up as a draw without going to the finish is laughable. Still, the two of you are roughly equal players, both higher 1200s/lower 1300s level. That it was even was no surprise. 

You are just another player making the same delusional posts about how you're somehow better than what your rating states. It's not that uncommon. You might get wins vs players higher rated than you, but you'll also lose to them. I'm roughly 1500s chess.com. You'd be expected to win some of the time vs me, but obviously you'd be on the losing end more often than not. I'm no chess genius, but most of the time I avoid doing anything especially stupid and have my days where I even make some good moves. I'd clean out your 1200 player, regularly beat the 1400 player, and vs the 1700 player I'd probably give them a run for their money and snatch more games than you would, but probably lose more often than not. Why such predictions? Just a glance at their ratings. The difference between 10-0 and 15-10 could influence things a bit, but if I wanted to account for that I could just keep playing the 10-0 time control to see if that varies the chances any. 

After playing enough games vs a varied enough group, everyone has wins vs higher rated opponents and losses vs lower rated ones. Some people have a basic understanding of that. Others will go delusional and try to put themselves on a pedestal for their higher rated wins while ignoring their losses with various excuses. It seems we've found yours.

He said it was muted, so he can't post on the forums.

Nah, you still played like a sub 1000 player back then too. I checked. Not as badly as the recent game posted prior, but then again, that looked too bad to be true, so that doesn't say anything. 

What a baby.  He's acting like a 2 year old on a temper tantrum.

I am the delusional one? Why dont you look at yourself. Let's dissect what you argue about:

- I've literally finished over 4500 matches, in which most of them have been in the 1400-1500 rating. Last year and a half I've gone to 1600-1900 and remained there, and I am still there. You disregard this completely and claim Im delusional. Im staring at the screen right now. I still have 84 simultaneous games on my board. Your argument is Im *imagining* these things.

- I've shown you two matches where i've clearly outplayed two 1900s, including a 1900 elo otb club player who had a blog and posted games he played vs other 2000 otb players - you disregard this completely because you assume they may have not even cared about the game against me. 

**** You cannot assume some people don't care about the games when they don't suit your argument, and then go to assume they do care about them when they DO suit your argument ***

That's not how it works.

You even imply I am being dishonest. Like, what, am I creating games at 1900 playing strength out of thin air to show to you?

Those are just two examples I picked. I have many many more of me outplaying people who are higher than your playing strength, because the average ELO I've played against during last year is 1800 - 200 points above your playing strength. Just a gentle reminder your 1600 is my floor.

- I've shown you evidence on how easy it's to outplay players several hundred points above my rating here, unlike it is against several people at the lower end of the bracket, as part of my argument - you just disregard this and still go and analyse each game, and point out the errors they made. Of course they made errors - they are 1500-1700, not a 3000+ chess engine!! However I beat them is not on discussion - if I use a fork or a pin, a discovered attack or a several-move combination, etc. all that is irrelevant. If I wanted to discuss this I would have gone to the Analysis section.

 The argument is I beat them easily and more frequently when I get to play them, than people at "my rating" or lower. That they are "weaker". I have not played many matches against them because chess.com matches you with higher rated opponents during Arenas only - not during normal play. You disregard all this and still go on a drivel analysing those games and the moves I used to get to win them, or their lack of skill. Completely missing the point of my argument, which I will explain AGAIN below:

- You go on to suggest I'm trying to prove evidence of a 1200 "super-play", as if they were IMs, or GMs, or whatever. I never claimed "super-play" - I claim many people across the lower end of the 1000s are stronger than their rating and that they somehow play stronger than average club players - yet they have remained 1000, 1100, 1200, etc for long periods of time. Something which makes absolutely no sense because no one expects a 1000 elo player to be stronger than a 1900 otb player - regardless of it being across different player pools.

Just as I said before, at this point you are still clearly missing the point of my argument, which is .... this renders the rating ladder moot, creating a vicious circle that keeps a lot of people there - many of them go on to win easily vs players several hundred points above them in Arenas and Swiss tournaments etc., but still won't climb because Chess.com matches them with other similar stuck people with equal low rating during normal non-tournament play. The only way to go around this is to stick to tournament only play where they can farm the weaker players from the high side of the 1000 bracket. 

 This renders the rating ladder on this website a bit pointless - you have 1100s who are stronger than 1500s, or 1500s who are play weaker than those 1100s - and a vicious circle which keeps them at 50/50.

 You disregard my argument and still focus on ME and my rating alone, and still focus on my moves from my games.

 The point of an ELO system is to measure relative strength among a pool of players, and when things like this happen, you can no longer trust your position in the ladder or assume you should be, judging by the position in the ladder, relatively speaking, stronger or weaker than the people around you. 

 That's my argument - not the kind of moves I make in my games ffs.

 At this point you are just going to disregard any evidence I can collect and call my delusional. Even if I posted 100 wins against players stronger than you (which I have, btw), you would still argue "it does not mean a thing". So, whatever dude.

Oh, and on the game analysis side, of course the game was a draw. You claim that "that it ended up as a draw without going to the finish is laughable" ... but the position was drawn with best play from each side - we were already "at the finish", as you put it. Not only did we notice this, us "1200 scrubs", but the Chess.com engine validated it, and my Stockfish 12 also yields a round 0.00 from the position as well.

How a 1600 rated player such as you misses such things is beyond me, considering delusional 1200 players such as my opponent and myself can see it clearly as water. 

Oh but I forget, a few posts ago you were counting the board pieces to use as an argument of the position value ... right. 1600s on chess.com, ladies and gentlemen.

I mean, you can make all the silly claims you like, but your profile speaks for itself. Your losses are literally on your page, so we can see how you are getting outplayed by low rated players who don't do anything special. You even humiliated yourself by picking one such example out yourself.

How do I start a new thread?

Go here and click on New Topic on the right side

https://www.chess.com/forum

Ok, let me repeat myself again, just for once pretend Im speaking to you like you would do to a little child:

 It's not about my profile or my ELO, or the tactics or positional ideas I use to win my games - it's about the rating ladder on this site being kind of useless to measure playing strength. Bear in mind Im talking about the ladder range between 1000 elo and maybe 1800, 1900, which is the range I have experience with. Not claiming anything outside those ranges. 

 I also have the advantage to play on another site dedicated to Daily chess, which I obviously use for comparison between player strengths here and there, especially after playing against some club players in my rating range.

 And the examples I have provided are just there to give evidence on this - NOT TO ASK FOR HELP ANALYSING MY GAMES. 

 If I wanted help with analysis of my games, I would be posting stuff in the other forum section.

 And I would not be asking you, a "1600" who still judges a position value by counting the pieces on the board, or who claims a dead 0.00 draw which was not played out is laughable:

"That it ended up as a draw without going to the finish is laughable"

 Just for reference, this is the late game position that according to you, never went "to the finish" and it's laughable we agreed a draw on:

1600, lol.

hi  I am an advanced with 1009 fide rating 

Anything below 2100 FIDE is trash. I still remember when you had to be 1700 to qualify for a FIDE rating. Why would they change it? Money maybe. More ranked people at low level = more money, more tournaments, etc.

 *tries to compare daily rating on one site to the rapid rating of a completely different site*

oof.

In any case, all this has ever been about was you being delusional. You seem to want to make things up because you aren't as good a player as you want to think and keep losing, so you try to pretend an entire chunk of rating that has your value in it is somehow invalidated, lol. Probably one big factor keeping you so far beneath my rating if you've played all the games you claim to have played. 

I win dead drawn positions all the time, no reason not to play them out. Plenty of players win/lose even positions, it's part of the game.  Players don't play perfectly, and the clock doesn't help them any in trying. They had a couple of minutes, yeah, I'll play it out for the win, and good chance I'll get one. If they hold it to a draw, that's fine, that's chess for you. But they don't always pull it off.  

You're white in this game and they let you get to this. Who needs to use any advanced methods to see who is winning this? A simple count of the pieces will show a 7 point lead for white. In as lopsided a position as this, a simple method will suffice. There's nothing going right for black, so unless you want to dig it to see just how badly black is losing, it's easy enough to just say white is winning, it's basically a won position and we can leave it at that. As it happens white has mate in 3 with this perfect play you wanted to obsesses about in the pawn position. Black won this game... That has nothing to do with how well black is playing, despite your claims of this game being a display of a 1200's superior play. A simple look at the game will reveal terrible play from both sides leading to this and demonstrating exactly why you both aren't higher up. Not some enormous rating failure of ludicrous proportions magically trapping 1100s that somehow play the level of 1500s, or whatever you wish to claim. You two just make basic blunders frequently expected at that rating range. That's normal. 

This guy has completely lost me.  Is he actually claiming that his rating here at chess.com of 1350 or so is too low and his skill should show a rating of say 1900+?

If so then is he claiming that when he loses to a 1200 player their ratings are actually also 1900 or so?  

If this is the case then are 1600-1900 rating at chess.com actually more like 2200-2300?  Because I bet he loses to most 1600+ players on this site.

 No !!!

 Im claiming the 1000-1700 rating ladder is somewhat non sensical, because many other players stuck at low rating play as strong as players 1600-1900 from the other site (some of which happen to be otb club players around that same bracket too), and as strong as some >1500 players I've played on this very same site as well. So it makes no sense for many of them to be stuck at low rating, yet there they are and there they remain. And when you have too many people like that spread across it, it will kind of defeat the purpose of an elo ladder - which is to measure relative playing strength.

 And I gave some examples of players in the 1200 that have outplayed me very easily, or have taken quick advantage of an error to turn the match around - which are things I only see when facing such club players in the other site, who happen to be around 1800 or so. I also showed some victories of mine against 1400, 1500, 1700 players from this very same site, and pointed out they are not as strong as some 1000-1200 players I have played against. As an example. I've also added a couple of victories of mine vs such club players in my post, as an example too. That's all. 

  It's never been about my rating. But catmaster0 is trying to prove very hard it's just me trying to tell the world Im 1600-1900 when in reality, he claims, I'm delusional and lying about such thing. This has never been my argument but obviously when I replied to him, stuff got lost in the noise. He's still trying very hard till now.

 I also never claimed all 1200s are incredibly strong or all >1500 are incredibly weak. I clearly said many some of them are which kind of weakens the purpose of a rating ladder system if you can't measure a player's relative playing strength with a certain degree of confidence.

This is a completely absurd claim(which is obviously false). Once someone's ratings are fairly accurate and not provincial it gives an exceptionally good indication of how well someone plays. Just like all things, it's not perfect. It can't know whether you are tired or drunk... but it does know - on average - how well you perform. Math doesn't lie.

OMG, I once posted in this thread and now this has blasted!