The policy and rules playing at live chess

One piece of advice - Try to reduce that phony arrogance of yours, because in the real world, you might actually get punched in the face. But don't worry, you're safe here.

And bye. Turning tracking off.

It's a yes or no question.  Either your rating will be different or it won't.  Which is it?

As I said, MuyangChen, you're incapable of actually arguing something. You are just here to troll. :) 

Starting from the very begining, look at what you say. "What are you actually trying to say," "don't feed the troll," "fail," "fail again," "see," etc.

I actually made genuine points but instead of reading them (likely because you can't or are too afraid to try to address them in English) you prefer to try to make me mad. That's it. That's the only reason you are here. To try to make me mad. Incidentally, although I already pointed such out, that is exactly what you tried to say I am doing. And, you're right. If you condescend to that kind of behavior, expect that exact same behavior in return.  

There you go, you actually took a chance to talk in English. Good job, MuyangChen. 

Go back and look at who is affecting arrogance. To be arrogant is to pretend that you are better than other people. I did no such thing but criticized chess.com's rules (as well as anticipated base responses thereof, such as your own, wherein people intentionally try to hurt others and refuse to reply constructively). That's exactly why you got the response that you did when you were arrogant. Don't believe me? Easy. Go back and reread the post and then look at your response. I did not "try" to say anything. I said exactly what I meant. And because you were angry about such, you tried to make me angry by feigning arrogance. Sadly for you though, it didn't work.  In the US, people say "practice what you preach."

You might look into that. :)

Off you go, and thanks for talking to me about violence. It's nice to see that you think people will punch others in the face. You're right, plenty of very poorly educated people do just that. They punch people in the face when their "ego" is hurt. It would seem like you belong to that group of people, but hey, I thought we were on a site for critical thinkers. 

I already answered that, but just to be sure that I understand, please restate your question. I don't understand what you mean when you say, "one match, one million times." That doesn't make sense. Give me a real scenario of people playing chess with one another.  

I did not say this.  Can you please edit your post to remove your false quote?  I suggest you re-read my post since you appear to have misunderstood.

Sure, no problem. 

"If you play 2 matches -

1 million games against a 1000

1 million games against a 2000

Will your rating for the 2 matches be different?"

This doesn't make any sense.

No one plays two matches two million times. I'm just asking you to ask your question so that it makes sense. I'm not trying to force you to reiterate it just to be a pain in the neck. I just want to be sure that I actually understand your point. That's why I tried to change the figures on your behalf as an alternative. Still waiting for your clarification. 

Are you having fun?

I've made no comment on whether such a match would be likely to be played or even feasible.  I have not claimed that anyone has played such a match.  I simply asked whether the final rating of the player in the 2 matches would be different.

I'd suggest trying to be nice to me, Wanmokewan, it'll be easier for you that way, I promise :) 

I did not ask about the liklihood of playing. I asked you to provide a realistic hypothesis rather than one that is impossible. :) I refer you to your verb "to play." :) 

That was a genuine question.

Otherwise, I win based on reductio ad absurdum. :) 

Let's say 9804 games then. 

Are you having fun arguing with strangers rather than do what presumably you came to this website for which is to play chess?

Failed writers, they're all the same.

Oh my yes.  I hate chess.

At least someone is.

Okay, so, what is your question then? Do I replace the one million games with 9,804 games? If so, the question is this: 

If I play two matches with two different people, each match made up of 9,804 games respectively, will my rating be different or the same after playing both players if both players are rated 1000 and 2000 respectively?  

If this is not the quesiton, then I do not understand the question. If so, the question depends on whether I lose or win, and how how many times. For example, if I am rated 1500 and play that many games against both players, if I lose to both players every time, my rating will be the same in the end because in the end, our ratings will be far enough apart that I won't be able to get my rating any lower. The same effect will arise if I win every time. However, if in either case I sometime win and sometimes lose, my rating will change based on how many times I won or lost. It can be more or less the same in the end if I win as many times as I lost. However, in these two matches, my rating would not be an accurate reflection of my talent unless it was previously accurately established (through play) and unless the other two player's ratings were also previously accurately established prior to playing. 

Like I said, theconciser, you don't know what ego means and because you've likely only now realized that it doesn't mean anything, you simply condescend to insulting me by guessing what I do. As it happens, I thank you for sinking so low as to talk about my profession like "I tried but failed because I'm no good." Think about what you're saying. 

You're saying to someone you don't know "hey, feel bad because you tried to make money by writing but you weren't able to." 

Why would anyone feel bad simply because you tell them to and, further, why would they feel bad because they failed at something they tried to do? You've never failed at something you tried to do and, in the event that you did fail, you had "ego" problems? No. Everyone fails and at lots of things. There is another one of your fun words that has no meaning. People don't "fail" they simply don't verify or forget or stop exerting effort as regards some pursuit. You "failed" to convince me that you have something to say. Someone else will "fail" to properly express themselves. We all "fail." It's our organism's way of adapting to our environment. Without the consequences of not verifying or forgetting or refusing to exert effort, we would not adjust or "grow." 

:)

And, no, you still haven't hit that "hot spot" you're looking for. Try again :)