I’m bored of this…

Sort:
WarMasterVik
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
warrior-vik wrote:
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
warrior-vik wrote:
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
warrior-vik wrote:
epic-doge wrote:

Oh yeah? I have more rating than you think in other websites.

Show me proof

Then nobody would be suspecting you

Dude he's talking about lichess and other sites. Ratings are inflated over there 

Ratings aren't inflated there

Those ratings make the starting harder and the GMs and IMs are rated around the same

It is inflated with respect to the ratings here on chess.com . And if you have a little bit of knowledge of how things work you would realise that titles are not obtained by playing online chess

Okay

So then just show us your FIDE or USCF account of rating

Then that will show us the proof

?? How tf is this even related to my FIDE and USCF ? 

I'm talking to @epic-doge

Not you

Anonymous_Dragon
warrior-vik wrote:
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
warrior-vik wrote:
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
warrior-vik wrote:
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
warrior-vik wrote:
epic-doge wrote:

Oh yeah? I have more rating than you think in other websites.

Show me proof

Then nobody would be suspecting you

Dude he's talking about lichess and other sites. Ratings are inflated over there 

Ratings aren't inflated there

Those ratings make the starting harder and the GMs and IMs are rated around the same

It is inflated with respect to the ratings here on chess.com . And if you have a little bit of knowledge of how things work you would realise that titles are not obtained by playing online chess

Okay

So then just show us your FIDE or USCF account of rating

Then that will show us the proof

?? How tf is this even related to my FIDE and USCF ? 

I'm talking to @epic-doge

Not you

You quoted my comment. Are you dumb or don't know how things work ? 

ProtegeVsMaster
warrior-vik wrote:
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
warrior-vik wrote:
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
warrior-vik wrote:
epic-doge wrote:

Oh yeah? I have more rating than you think in other websites.

Show me proof

Then nobody would be suspecting you

Dude he's talking about lichess and other sites. Ratings are inflated over there 

Ratings aren't inflated there

Those ratings make the starting harder and the GMs and IMs are rated around the same

It is inflated with respect to the ratings here on chess.com . And if you have a little bit of knowledge of how things work you would realise that titles are not obtained by playing online chess

Okay

So then just show us your FIDE or USCF account of rating

Then that will show us the proof



Of course I come back to this. Ugh. Let Professor Staub take this one.

 

Let's use my profiles as an example. On this account (My main Chess.com account) I am a 1050 in blitz, don't play rapid or classic, and am about a 1200 in bullet. I am an average to below average player.

 

Now take my USCF and FIDE ratings. I am a 1137 FIDE/USCF (I somehow got both to be the same. Don't ask me how, I don't know myself.) Now, on chess.com I am about a 1050-1075 player overall. Chess.com has me at about 70-80 points below FIDE and USCF. (It also has me playing at about a 1300 level, so I'd say that I just take part in too many tournaments).

 

Now, let's go to lichess. This is probably my best site. I am a 1600 blitz, 2023 bullet, 1700 hyperbullet, 1800 rapid, and 1850 classical. I also rank in the top 50 best atomic players in lichess. I am (or was in beta testing/ before I let my sister use my account so that she could play atomic, who is around ten right now, so that dropped me about 70 points there) an 1800 in atomic for chess.com, but I don't rank anywhere close to top 50. 

 

If an 1100 like me can do that on other chess websites, imagine if I were an 1800 FIDE. I may get top 25 Atomic on lichess.

 

My point is, different websites have different rating systems. I tried this one website called chessbase for a while (Which I do not recommend. The servers are slow.) and I got to about 1700 blitz there. Compare that to my 1050 chess.com rating and you see a very different result.

TheSwissPhoenix
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
epic-doge wrote:

Oh yeah? I have more rating than you think in other websites.

Everybody has a higher rating on other sites kiddo . That's because those sites use a different elo system. 

When you have a lower blitz, bullet, and rapid rating on lichess sad sad.png

TheSwissPhoenix
OpenJoyfulKitty wrote:

So, after @epic-doge made a forum about him becoming an ‘NM’ I had to make this.

What’s the prob Kitty?

HERE’S THE THING

So many people are saying ‘I’m an NM, CM, GM, IM, FM, blah blah’

Some people like me tell them not to lie

BUT THEY JUST CALL US NAMES

It ain’t fair

So, here’s my FIX

If they have a rating lower than 2000 or atleast 1800, chesscom bans them for sandbagging 

Cuz they rnt playing like a master, but calling the truth-sayers names.

I think this should serve them right.

Some people show, Roman Numerals, and accept that they’re joking, that’s FUNNY

But these guys who am talking about say that we’re dumb for saying THE TRUTH?!

C’mom this isn’t fair

SO, I say that chess.com should take these actions.

Thx for hearing my rant.

WCM is 1300 bullet tho, but still mainly correct.

Kuso-ka

ok

Gymstar

gm=good man

Gymstar

nm= not master

Woollensock2
Jap=just a patzer ! 🙀
Gymstar

noice

JustARandomDudeOnCC

Ye

JustARandomDudeOnCC

So, shall we ask the mods to try to add this feature? :3