Titles must be real
Sort:
ConnorMacleod_151
Aug 16, 2014
0
#21
[COMMENT DELETED]
WhatIsThisHereNow wrote:
If someone is calling himself Dr. but is none, and gets catched, he can go to jail.
Take me away, dude.
baddogno wrote:
(...) Sorry my post didn't meet your high standards. I assure you that it won't happen again. Welcome to my blocked list.
It actually didnt meet basic standards of logic. Now enjoy your safe firewalled version of reality.
BTW, the reason there are some people rated 1700 in live chess and blitz chess, and they have red letter titles next to their name, is that these ratings are not the same as FIDE or USCF ratings. Live and blitz chess rating pools on this website are known to be strongly deflated when compared to OTB federation ratings. These people with 1800 or 2000 blitz ratings really are chess masters in real life.
Aug 16, 2014
0
#25
kaynight wrote:
Another fight!!!!
I'll wager a nearly-full bag of Nachos on WhatIsThisHereNow.
Thanks, gentlemen, i refuse :-)
Aug 17, 2014
0
#27
Where is your proof that chess.com doesn't verify titles of said title holders? Did you google that?
DrCheckevertim wrote:
BTW, the reason there are some people rated 1700 in live chess and blitz chess, and they have red letter titles next to their name, is that these ratings are not the same as FIDE or USCF ratings. Live and blitz chess rating pools on this website are known to be strongly deflated when compared to OTB federation ratings. These people with 1800 or 2000 blitz ratings really are chess masters in real life.
Are you sure FIDE and USCF ratings are not just inflated?
I was under the impression that you loved Google, Bronco?
Wow... thanks... I don't know how to respond...
kleelof wrote:
DrCheckevertim wrote:
BTW, the reason there are some people rated 1700 in live chess and blitz chess, and they have red letter titles next to their name, is that these ratings are not the same as FIDE or USCF ratings. Live and blitz chess rating pools on this website are known to be strongly deflated when compared to OTB federation ratings. These people with 1800 or 2000 blitz ratings really are chess masters in real life.
Are you sure FIDE and USCF ratings are not just inflated?
Well, USCF has been adjusting ratings to fix deflation, so I would be pretty sure about that. It has been improving but there was bad ratings deflation for a while here.
Bronco70 hat geschrieben:
I love everything and everyone. Including you little fella
You just love dogs.
Aug 17, 2014
0
#34
Jimmykay wrote:
Dude
Firstly, you use the word "dude" WAY too much.
Secondly, they absolutely verify titles. Please supply an example of someone who is on this site that you think has a title that is unwarranted.
Thanks, dude.
np
Aug 17, 2014
0
#35
WhatIsThisHereNow wrote:
baddogno hat geschrieben:
Actually chess.com does require proof (...)
This has nothing to do with requirement. Google that word please.
Edit: but thanks for the links :-)
I was not sure what you meant by this.
WhatIsThisHereNow wrote:
Bronco70 hat geschrieben:
I love everything and everyone. Including you little fella
You just love dogs.
Um... last time I checked I wasn't a dog...
WhatIsThisHereNow wrote:
I do not get your point. What did you do where?
Kaynight said chess.com does not check ... get it now?
Oh. Haha :-)
Think that Chess.Com is being sexist when allowing free Diamond membership for Woman that have Fide Titles that correspond to a Fide rating of less than 2000, while Men have to be rated approx 2200 to qualify. Here is a list that will get you free Diamond membership.
- GM
- Grandmaster
- WGM
- Woman Grandmaster
- IM
- International Master
- WIM
- Woman Intl. Master
- FM
- FIDE Master
- NM
- National Master
- CM
- FIDE Candidate Master
- WCM
- FIDE Woman Candidate Master
- WNM
- Woman National Master
The last 3 are quite easy to obtain rating wise provided you play in some sanctioned Fide competition.
Aug 17, 2014
0
#40
WhatIsThisHereNow wrote:
baddogno wrote:
(...) Sorry my post didn't meet your high standards. I assure you that it won't happen again. Welcome to my blocked list.
It actually didnt meet basic standards of logic. Now enjoy your safe firewalled version of reality.
The initial statement was in fact logical.