belligerence of a higher rated player

firstly, note that this isnt a personal anecdote, where i whine about something that happened to me from a third person perspective in search of sympathy or something of the like, but rather a statement based just on observance.

please quit dismissing the 1200-1400 rated players. yes, im one of them, but that doesnt make my interest in chess any less qualified, or anyone elses. too often i see a forum topic, or a topic post, where a patzer's post is certainly misguided, but that doesnt justify an immature amount of flaming from the higher-rated more established members of the chess.com echelon. please, answer the question or statement politely if you wish to educate, or hit the back button and continue with your higher-rated chess unbothered by something you claim to dismiss anyway.

it reminds me of, as a teenager, the automatic assumptions of everyone that im only in the store to shoplift. its obnoxious, unjustified, and even more immature than the patzer's dumb post.

and finally, please especially keep the belligerence off this thread, if only for the purpose of avoiding a serious amount of irony.

Interesting post. Given that we're sharing observations in this thread,  I can see three possible scenarios resulting in some of the ill-will you are alluding to:

A. A post is made claiming something inaccurate (from the POV of a decent to higher rated player) in a tooting-horn/bombastic manner. Could be a troll or somebody with really no experience at setting a stage for a useful discussion.

B. A post is made claiming something inaccurate where the OP ends with an explicit question mark (or any such way to suggest that he's welcome to be proven wrong through logical/deductive/empirical reasoning) => he almost *wants* a higher-rated to chime on in this claim in a constructive manner.

C. A post is made claiming something inaccurate ... but not suggesting either A or B ... just one of those vague topics you keep seeing every now and then.

Now posts of type A will chum the forum waters and bring in the sharks (a few NMs out here will pop out their dorsal fins and go on a feeding frenzy). I think these are entertaining and completely justified. :)

Posts of type B deserve the civility you mentioned. If a higher-rated goes on attacking an honest question or comment, it really shows a lack of class.

Posts of type C are always the the wildcards here  ... nobody's sure what the OP intended ... did he want an opinion? was he just trolling? does he understand how to use this forum?

Unfortunately, if you posted in this "vague" manner, you may get attacked by a few higher-rateds rudely ... though we're all given the right to respond to clarify what we meant/intended as well. There are enough decent folk out here to call people on any bullying/intimidation ... one of the best things about this forum!

 Of course, for really rude people (who might even resort to cussing/swearing), you can always report them to chess.com and we may be fortunate to see less of them in future threads. :)

Personally I hardly see any of that kind of unjust rudeness on here.

I agree. I think one of the things that makes chess interesting is the disconnect between knowledge and skill. A player who reads a lot of chess books may know a whole lot about openings, and the middlegame strategy, and yet, in their own games, be unable to apply it. Alternatively, a player who never studies a day, but has played for a long long time, may be highly rated, and yet know very little.

A while back I saw quite a lot of type A in the posts on the daily puzzles: 'this is stupid!', 'this puzzle makes no sense!' etc. 99,9% of the daily puzzles posted are correct, and people should keep an open mind to the possibility that they do not have the skills to see the point of the particular puzzle instead of resorting to the gutreactionary: I am always right and I want the world to know! Sometimes, reading the posts before hammering away in frenzy at the keyboard might have enlightened these misguided, selfappointed masters of chess.

I used to read the commentaries to see if there were any lines explained that I might have missed, and to see if any nice additional puzzles were posted. But I stopped, one of the reasons being these comments of ignoranti.

Another type of reaction to A, B, or C is a comment like 'you are wrong", 'move x is better/wins', without explanation or with minimal reference. If a player thinks he/she nows better, please have the courtesy to explain why in some detail. This type of comment is found in vote chess games...

btw, I like the typology-thing!

To add to this, why not shed some light on some misconceptions of the "higher rated on chess.com" player.

- There are very strong players who are rated 1200 on chess.com because (drum roll, please) they DON'T play here.  Unless somebody posts legitimate information about a federation rating, his true playing strength is up in the air.   

- However, if one has played enough games (live + online) on this server, one can reasonably gauge their chess playing abilities.  

- Finally : A Rating is merely a number that tracks your current playing strength. Over time, if you haven't gotten better, this number does a good job of approximating your strength. If you are on a growth-spurt, chances are, you are playing far better than the number next to your name.  

- Ad hominem attacks based on one's rating are commonplace ... though if the post contains a claim that cannot be refuted by a room full of grandmasters, then it is the truth, regardless of whether a  "1200 chess.com player"  said it or a 3000-rated player.

I don't think it is right that many people mouse-over somebody's name in a forum post and instantly assume they "know" all about their chess playing skills, or lack thereof. I'd rather pay attention to what they are saying instead.