@DutchDevisser
YESS, I sometimes play at a 1900 level but my rating is 700 it's dumb, so I'm put against the best 700's on the website, it's pointless and I'm stuck...
Don't listen to game review it's dumb plus yes even 600s can beat 1900s rarely everyone gets tunnel vision it doesn't matter the level you all thinking your better than you are is actually pretty normal for beginners
The game review post-game rating is meanngless. Don’t pay any attention to it. If you want to know your “true” playing level, play in OTB tournaments with classical time controls.
i looked at some of your most recent losses. You are not close to being 1900. In one game, you did not defend against a mate in 1. We expect that from beginners.
OTB, I don’t think you would be 1600. You miss threatened pieces, do not win after your opponent has given you decisive amounts of material, and make serious opening mistakes—even in openings that you play repeatedly. My guess is that your actual level is around 1200-1300. That is about a rating class below the average club player.
There is no need to look for conspiracies to explain your rating stagnation. Better to try to improve your game.
The game review post-game rating is meanngless. Don’t pay any attention to it. If you want to know your “true” playing level, play in OTB tournaments with classical time controls.
i looked at some of your most recent losses. You are not close to being 1900. In one game, you did not defend against a mate in 1. We expect that from beginners.
OTB, I don’t think you would be 1600. You miss threatened pieces, do not win after your opponent has given you decisive amounts of material, and make serious opening mistakes—even in openings that you play repeatedly. My guess is that your actual level is around 1200-1300. That is about a rating class below the average club player.
There is no need to look for conspiracies to explain your rating stagnation. Better to try to improve your game.
I was playing quick and blundered everyone does that, that doesn't make me a beginner.
@DutchDevisser
YESS, I sometimes play at a 1900 level but my rating is 700 it's dumb, so I'm put against the best 700's on the website, it's pointless and I'm stuck...
Don't listen to game review it's dumb plus yes even 600s can beat 1900s rarely everyone gets tunnel vision it doesn't matter the level you all thinking your better than you are is actually pretty normal for beginners
No, a number on the website doesn't control what or what you don't know. I'll prove it, want to play rapid against me? Same with @mikewier I wanna see how well I do, please?
edited moderator AndrewSmith
The game review post-game rating is meanngless. Don’t pay any attention to it. If you want to know your “true” playing level, play in OTB tournaments with classical time controls.
i looked at some of your most recent losses. You are not close to being 1900. In one game, you did not defend against a mate in 1. We expect that from beginners.
OTB, I don’t think you would be 1600. You miss threatened pieces, do not win after your opponent has given you decisive amounts of material, and make serious opening mistakes—even in openings that you play repeatedly. My guess is that your actual level is around 1200-1300. That is about a rating class below the average club player.
There is no need to look for conspiracies to explain your rating stagnation. Better to try to improve your game.
Masters are usually known to have no understanding of what rating lower level players are. Lots of times grandmaster will rank 2000s rated games as 900s lol. Don’t take it personally lots of people when they progress forget where they came from. I’m 1500 over the board advanced beginner and this site clearly has a issue I would speak of but can not due to rules of the site.
The game review post-game rating is meanngless. Don’t pay any attention to it. If you want to know your “true” playing level, play in OTB tournaments with classical time controls.
i looked at some of your most recent losses. You are not close to being 1900. In one game, you did not defend against a mate in 1. We expect that from beginners.
OTB, I don’t think you would be 1600. You miss threatened pieces, do not win after your opponent has given you decisive amounts of material, and make serious opening mistakes—even in openings that you play repeatedly. My guess is that your actual level is around 1200-1300. That is about a rating class below the average club player.
There is no need to look for conspiracies to explain your rating stagnation. Better to try to improve your game.
Masters are usually known to have no understanding of what rating lower level players are. Lots of times grandmaster will rank 2000s rated games as 900s lol. Don’t take it personally lots of people when they progress forget where they came from. I’m 1500 over the board advanced beginner and this site clearly has an issue I would speak of but can not due to rules of the site.
So true
I am an advanced beginner level chess player, knowing people who reached higher levels I must say, chess.com is under inflated at this level. It maybe true that once you get to 2000 it’s inflated, but the lower levels are not accurate at all. 1200-1400 has some of the best players I have ever played against in my life. The strength of there opening knowledge, middle game no where resembles a 1200-1400 rated player. It’s absolutely insane to me how chess.com does address as being stuck at these levels is frustrating and we all know what is causing the deflation at the lower levels. But I can’t say in fear of being locked.
Actually 2000 is not inflated lower levels is deflated and it's not that it's inaccurate it's also not cheating it's also the fact that there's like 100 times more beginners than experts