The curious case of 1200: The Expert's rating

Uhm, he doesn't need to argue with you. It's not an argument. Your rating is based on math, people you won and lost to and who they won and lost to. 

 Based on your analysis you dont seem to have learnt enough apparently. And you can't have a discussion without disregarding stuff you dont like as "lies", and calling the other party "delusional".

Wow.  In looking at that history against 1700+ rated players he was 1 win 11 losses.  

 And? Your point is? I already know how an ELO system works. Did I ask "how is my rating calculated" ??? No.

 It does not mean the positions in the rating ladder are 100% correct. Want some other bit of evidence of rating inconsistency that's got nothing to do with me? Go look at any Arena ever. All the top 10 / 20 spots after the 2-hour play. Full of sandbaggers who are apparently "low rated" but end up winning the tournament with 100% accuracy after 2 hours of play against what they are supposed to be players of similar strength. Stuff like that ALSO affects ladder positioning for many players.

 And I play here because I can, I dont need your approval to do it, and I dont care if I am missed or not.

And? In the history vs 1700 players on some Daily site I dont have just 1 win and 11 loses. I am the same person, and the chess is the same. So my record against 1700 players is not really 1-11 ... Your point is... what?

In order to get better at chess, you need to learn the basics. A lot of players at low ratings just don't bother to do that. Simple things like "make sure not to hang your pieces for no reason". Counting pieces is more than sufficient for basic positions like the ones in many of your games. The one shown before had you at a 7 point material lead, and the computer eval only said it was even stronger than that. Unfortunately, at your rating level, players frequently blunder, and that's what happened for you, causing you to lose your winning advantage. You still had solid chances, but were unable to bring yourself to use them and ended up resigning. 

If you progress in chess, you will learn more about the game. For instance, the term hope chess isn't about playing a drawn position at all. Playing safe moves and waiting to see if your opponent blunders an endgame is entirely reasonable, especially when you are playing at such a lower level and your opponent is short on time. Endgames are frequently something overlooked. Your opponent as black took a game off of you when you had forced mate on the board, expecting a player to slip up in a drawn endgame, with no risk to yourself as you can obtain the draw worst case scenario (presumably you trust in your own abilities to do this), is not really hope chess. Hope chess falls in line with making moves that need their opponent to play poorly to work out. Playing a drawn position isn't that. 

A lot of players make these basic mistakes at your level. Not as many of them go quite as far as you have to avoid this fact, lol. But still, learning to improve so you get through these levels is a good way to get beyond such silliness. 

Im way past that, sorry, Im defeating club players regularly. And yes your advise is hope chess. A position where it was obviously a draw with best position from both sides, you ask me to keep playing it. Even after it was obvious the opponent saw it too. Just to "hope" he plays the less optimal move and I capitalise. He was obviously not going to do that. That's "hope chess" and I stopped playing hope chess around 10 years ago.

That you're not as good as you think you are.  I've looked at about 20 of your games against people rated 900-1300.  You won, lost and drew games.  But in each and everyone there was a major blunder by one side or the other and sometimes both.  I'm talking about hanging pieces for the taking.

While a 1900 player can still do this, everyone has mental brain farts, it is much more rare.  Yet in these games it was a very common occurrence.  And that is why the rating are 900-1300 and not 1900+.

You may eventually get there. For now you are still losing at these lower levels to these simple mistakes. It has kept you at the 1200-1300 level, where players are still learning to implement these concepts into their games. 

Well I clearly use more time than 10 minutes when Im playing daily chess so I spot potential blunders in my thinking more often. I do have stupid blunders in Daily chess still and I normally resign as soon as I make them. Just to not drag the game on.

Look at your rating and look at what you type... it's just funny because I read in a book today and the author referred to sub 1600 players or something as those who play hope chess.

Against a 1200 rated player I would force them to mate me in R+K vs. K, B+B+K vs. K and even in king and pawn endings where I'm down even 2 pawns.  Too often they can't do it.  With even more pieces on the board there is even a better chance of getting a draw via perpetual or stalemate.

😮

It's funny you are all analysing my games when I clearly stated the positions from my games were not my argument at all. And you guys have even gone to my previous account and looked at the games there... 

... but you never went over the matches I posted here in which I claim I've beaten higher rated players. It's as if you ignore them because it'd not help your argument. You are not different than the "you are lying" from the catmaster guy.

Your ratings are more accurate than you would like them to be. The ratings here make sense. Your Bullet rating makes sense giving your performance against the average rating of your opponents. Math is math. Don't need to look at the moves you make. 

I've looked at them and even loaded them into the analysis engine here.  As for your win/lose rates it is strictly based on your word.  So I took it as questionable.

Now there is ONE explanation that would support your claim.  In OTB with 40/90 or equivalent time limits you might be that player.  And a 10 minute game simply doesn't give you enough time to verify your move.  But that would not support your contention that 1200 players are actually much stronger.

They are different time periods.  May I suggest you play 15/10 and 30 minute games to see how you do in those.  That should answer your question on how good you really are.  maybe you just suck at rapid.

There are people who go "I beat x rated player!", but they don't usually use it as any kind of indicator of their playing strength, because they know that stuff is just for fun. It would be like when a little kid brags about beating their dad at chess and says how now they're at that level. Some people might find it cute at younger ages, though they might get more worried if that continues when they get older. Best case scenario, your examples are fairly meaningless. 

There are plenty of other issues of course. You post games with no evidence of where they are from, who is playing, etc... And also zero access to the game pool it's based on, so we can't see if those are the norm or just the best games visible, assuming they exist. Different websites have different levels of play for their ratings, a 1900 on one site cold be a 1400 on another, simply because their scores work differently. So much information is missing. It's not a particularly reliable set of data. 

On the other hand, your own playing strength is made pretty clear from the games that are clearly tied to you on chess.com. Time control, opponents, etc. And we can see all of the games, so there's no cherry-picking the best ones and trying to show them off as the norm, the rating and records speak for themselves even without looking at specific games. We've looked at some of the ones you claimed as examples of... well, your very silly theory, which embarrassingly for you ended up showing the opposite of what you claimed.  

Given your reaction to the games on chess.com, we already have examples of you being an unreliable narrator. Sometimes lower rated players try to act like they are better than they are, and we've seen numerous cases of you attempting this, making it difficult to take what you say as face value. With time, you will hopefully learn to outgrow it, but until then, there's no reason not to look at the objective data we already have a opposed to a few random games from who knows where that say little. 

Hey!... I drew Tal (in a simultaneous exhibition) back in 1988.

Are you claiming that  doesn't make me super-GM strength?

No because you just got a draw.  That only makes you GM strength.  Now if you actually beat him that is another thing altogether.  "That is another thing".  (Airplane anyone?)

Roger, Roger. What's our vector, Victor?