Chess.com ratings are so inaccurate

You don't play at a 1500 level. I've seen your games. You play at best like an 1100ish player, and he does too.

I look the liberty of looking one of the games you played with him, and pointing out both of your mistakes.

6.h3 and 6...h5 have literally no point. It's just a waste of a tempo.

11...Be4 drops a pawn after 12.Nxe4 (what he played) although you can also win the pawn had he taken with his pawn Nxe4 13.Bxg7 Kxg7 14.Bb7 Rb8 15.Bxd5

13...0-0-0 is a blunder. You got your rooks forked, and dropped the f2 pawn at the same time. It's a 1 move blunder.

14.Bxg7 is a mistake. You are going to be down an exchange with no compensation. You need as many pieces as possible to have a chance, not simplify into a lost ending.

16...Nxd1 is an inaccuracy. He should've taken the h1 rook forcing you to recapture on h1 and waste a tempo to place the rook in a bad square.

17.Kxd1 is another inaccuracy. Your rook on h1 isn't doing anything. Recapture with the rook to bring it to the center.

20...a5 is a waste of a move. White's king is in the center. He should have played e5 to open the position.

21.c4 is a blunder. you dropped your d-pawn.

The game is already lost by now, but you played Qc3 trading even more and doubling your pawns, both of which are terrible ideas. You are down material, never trade when you're down material.

This was a 10 minute game. Not a 3 minute blitz game. A lot more time to think about the moves, yet you guys made a ton of mistakes and blunders. This is two 1000s playing, not a 1500 and a 1700 playing.

So another 1000 rated player told you that you play at 1500 rating? I was trying to be kind to be you at first, but let's face it, you're pretty delusional.

Yes, this player OfGeniusKind listed his rating as 1700+ on his profile. But to believe this kid that's probably as self-indulgent as you are, is pretty naive. When you google the name he has on his profile, no USCF or FIDE records are available for it.

But keep lying to yourself...

 

And you're being generous by 300 to Ashton_Yeager .

Truth is, that are many people that have good a level on 60|30 games and up, while totally suck in anytihng under 15 minutes... perhaps this is the case... perhaps...

 

Hi Ashton,

I hope all is well. I just wanted to clarify a little bit about the rating system so you can have a better understanding of it for future reference. First of all the rating is a statistical measure of how you perform against other people. The ELO system is used by the US Chess Federation (USCF) and the Federation International Des Echecs (FIDE). Essentially, a person with the same rating as his/her opponent should get 50% of the points available per games played. A player rated with an 800 point difference, should have about a 99% difference, and this difference is asymptotic. Essentially what this means is that although the player who is significantly higher rated should always win, there is always the chance that they could lose to a significantly lower rated player because of some confounding factor on that given day, etc. Chess.com does not use the Elo system, but rather the Glicko2 system, which although similar is not identical. As such, the ratings are CORRELATED, but cannot be expected to be totally identical. You would expect a FIDE GM to have a higher rating than a FIDE FM on chess.com, despite the different elo systems, for example. 

 

Given that is now clarified, I want to point out that ratings ARE accurate and strongly correlated to over the board play. NM Smarterchess has a blog post regarding it. Here is the link: https://www.chess.com/blog/smarterchess/chess-rating-comparison-2016

 

Your rating as of now is relatively low. I mean this in the nicest of ways, but you are not a particularly strong player yet, although I'm sure you can be with a lot of time and dedication. A rating is not just a number, as it is correlated with playing strength. It will go up as you improve, and if you do get worse (as is found with people who age past their prime, haven't played in a while, etc.) your rating will go down. I implore you to focus on your overall performance, rather than focusing on individual games that are upsets. Take your victories with pride, but learn from your losses. That will help you improve to your rating goals. 

 

 

I am 2000 FIDE but 1200 here

I think chess.com ratings are underrated by at least 200(even up to 300) compared to OTB. I think the ratings become more accurate as they are go higher. I think ratings between 1000-2000 in chess.com is underrated.

PawnPusher3 I've been wanting to play you.  Are you up for a Daily Chess game. 

No - I'm in the middle of applying to medical school, traveling, and am completing my senior year at college. I don't have excess time for games unless you want coaching (which I charge for, of course). 

Then you are the perfect example of how inaccurate these ratings are.

He is trolling

I am 1779 Fide, and about 1550 here.

 

Regardless of that, I think OP is pretty delusional.

If my rating was reset at 1000, I would get back to 1550 in the blink of an eye. Yet you can't, which means you are a weaker player. Same reasoning goes for players who are 1700 or 1800 here. I haven't been able to reach that rating yet, whilst they are capable of constantly maintaining it. Therefore they are better.

 

OP needs to either stop trolling or wake up from his delusion ..

Look at my game between @getmein, Yesterday as well, I was tired as hell.

I am not delusional and I am not trolling.  I have beaten a CM on chess.com before.  Do you actually think that a player with a strength of 1000 could do this?  You are delusional if you think so.   I must be underrated....hmm imagine that.   Me and Ofgeniuskind are both underrated.  Also if you are going to analyse our games then analyze the longer time controls.  Look at the 3 day game.  When you analyze longer time games you can see a player's true strength.   I do not take blitz seriously, meaning I don't really think too much.  Here is a link to my game with WCM canary2016  https://www.chess.com/live/game/2282793931

It is the internet, calm down. These people can have their opinions and they can be wrong, let them be wrong. Even if they are right, it isn't wise to pick a fight.

Chess.com ratings ARE inaccurate. Some people play more online. Some do the opposite.

My chess.com is 1500 my USCF is 1300.

If you think you're underrated, it shouldn't be hard to play some games and bring your rating up since you should easily win against people around your rating.

As was said, chess.com ratings are very accurate for chess.com but other sites and federations will have different pools of players... it would make sense for chess.com to be higher than USCF ratings because more people have the ability and time to play online where as everyone in USCF takes it seriously atleast to some extent.

As far as beating a titled player in an online blitz game, maybe you got lucky, they were drunk, having a bad day, letting a friend play on their account or maybe you played exceptionally well that day or game.

Online ratings are an accurate representation on your wins/losses that take account of your opponents rating, at first it fluctuates a lot, then not so much as it becomes more accurate. It does not care how well you play, if you out play your opponent and lose on time, you lost. If you've gotten better eventually your rating will reflect that.

Only way to know for sure what your rating would be otb is to go play otb!

And if all you want is for the number next to your name to appear higher, you should go play on that once place that's not to be named, I maintain high 1700's over there 😂

I'd recommend not to get too hung up on numbers tho and enjoy all that chess.com has to offer.

Daily chess games shouldn't be used to analyze true strength because of the access to databases that helps a lot, not to mention the extensive amount of time available. 

Secondly, canary2016 isn't a strong player. She is a 1400 FIDE player. That's what I was saying earlier, that the WCM title is not hard to obtain.

And you are not underrated. If you were underrated you would easily be able to go up in rating to where you should belong. But you can't, so you aren't. It's really not that hard to understand. Your USCF page says that you're currently rated 745, and I think that's a pretty accurate rating, given that you lost to someone rated 646.

 Also, I just saw your game with the WCM, the game was littered with mistakes, and you only won on time on a time control that had increment. Not impressive and definitely not showing signs of being "underrated"

@Indirect, can't you achieve a tittle playing correspondence chess in atleast USCF? And wow you can get WCM at 1400?!? First time I've ever wanted to be a girl 😂