Titled get's rating automatically?

If you are titled, do you automatically get a rating of what it is in your real life here? 

Just that the rating system here seems a bit deflated and perhaps the rating system is slightly harder here than in real. Don't know how many likes I will get from my analysis, but my question still stands, do they get their automatically?

           If your titled you get free membership  Harry; don't get too worked up. He's been here a month, and he's no where near titled.

So you don't get your rating automatically? I asked because I was confused, I watched some live games by Judit Polgar vs Nigal Short a while back, and when I was watching, I went to Judits page and she hadn't played a single game at chess.com, yet she automatically had a rating of 2600 something. 

I have seen Anad has a 2600 despite 0 games played

This is what I am talking about.

             People like Anad, and Polgar would not use their real names here. Hell, you don't even use your real name.

look up the best players. Anad does not use his real name if he does use an account. There is an account with Anad's name on it, a picture of him, and a rating of 2600.

regardless of what you think, Polgar has attended here and played, titled players here, play by their name. And they seem to get their rating here with no effort at all. 

            No effort at all??    I think their life speaks for itself.

Sure, in real life. I was really hoping that was obvious, but their ratings don't project effort at the site at all. 

      Gambit;  I could put up a picture of Johnny Carson, but that wouldn't make it so. This is the internet. Not reality TV. Beleive half of what you see, and nothing of what you hear, and you'll be OK.

I do think they get higher ratings to start with. Example: the regular ol' weak players like us start at 1200 while an IM may start at 2200 or something. A FM might get 2000 or so. A GM might get 2400 or 2600 (maybe the super GM's like Anand, Polgar, Nakamura, Caruana, etc. get 2600). I'm pretty sure of that because I've seen only a few games played by titled players yet they will have a rating on here that's mathematically impossible to achieve in jus a few games.

This is chess.com, you will be caught out plaigiarizing someones name and rating. It's not the hardest thing to check out. Just like Judit will have signed some contract before she started playing her death match, at 2600+ with no games behind her. 

I believe it probably was Anand he seen, if it was anyone else, they would have exploited the rating immediately. 

Yeah.

Ronald, I understand.

Maybe i'll find you the link so your hyperintelligence can lead my blind and guilible self to the correct conclusion.

Caruana, Nakamura, Polgar all use their real names. I'm sure there are many more. Now if Carlsen would just join. Hmmmmm.... what would his rating be? They would probably start him at 2700-2800 just because.

          I'll admit I don't understand ratings, but I thought the OP was just being stupid on purpose. Sorry if I offended you.

http://www.chess.com/members/view/Anand

And more to the point of the thread, Can you blame chess com.

A GM with a massaged ego is more likely to play on your site.

The initial ratings on this site are faulty. To try to fix that, the site admins have assigned ratings to titles. 

Instead, they should just make everyone unrated when they begin and let the rating system that works for FIDE and USCF work the way it's supposed to work.

(Yes, there are slight differences with the Glicko2 system, Glicko1 and old-fashioned Elo, but not with regards to how to rate unrated players.)

Im sorry for being sarcastic, I just felt that your points about the internet were obvious. I supose I had no right to expect you to take my word @ face value.