Chess Ratings and Postings

Do any of you guys check people ratings when reading their posts or am I the only one?

I don't always do it but with someone new I check out their Rhp rating and then assign a value to their postings. So if someone writes something which I don't agree with I check out their rating and then determine if the post is alright or bad.

Some people go on and on about this and that in their posts on how to improve or how good they are and when you look at their rating, it's so low. Yet they want you to believe they are so great at chess.

ill look at the ratings as you say when its something i dont agree with but am not sure about, but usually ill just weigh the logic of what is posted over the rating, as many lower rated players than me know things i dont im sure, especially in areas i dont study much such as endgames and openings.

Absolutely! I didn't at first but when I found I was reading drivel I did and found the guy was rated 1140. Now I check as a matter of course.

Every time that I read something from someone I'm not familiar with.

Originally posted by BLReid
Every time that I read something from someone I'm not familiar with.

I'll never post in "Only Chess" again. 😞

Edit: especially considering I've recently had a massive ratings drop due to blitz CC 😛.

I check ratings for the same reason. but I already pretty much know where all the 'regulars' stand, so I usually only check newcomers.

Originally posted by wormwood
I check ratings for the same reason. but I already pretty much know where all the 'regulars' stand, so I usually only check newcomers.

I'm pretty regular.

I do, sometimes.

I do think that a player can sometimes give you good advice even when they are lower rated than you. At a tourney a player rated about 1400 told me that I wasn't playing my usual aggressive game (I am rated OTB about 1850); I had been experimenting with very positional stuff particularly after reading some middle game texts like Silman's and Nimzo's "My System".

However, if you are more comfortable with calculation you may be more predisposed to tactics and therefore, whilst bearing in mind strategic planning, inject some disequilibrium into the position.

I thought it was good advice; it didn't matter to me what rating was attached to it's imparter.

I do check the ratings of posters, but only when they post analysis and variations....

In which case, if its lower I pay less attension, Higher, I pay more - simple as that really.

If your reading opinions on openings or listening to discussions of FIDE/RHP rules or ethical play I think ratings are rather irelevant.

^ in which case, I will pay more attension to posts that use real words and grammer.

Originally posted by demonseed
I do, sometimes.

I do think that a player can sometimes give you good advice even when they are lower rated than you. At a tourney a player rated about 1400 told me that I wasn't playing my usual aggressive game (I am rated OTB about 1850); I had been experimenting with very positional stuff particularly after reading some middle game texts like Silman' ght it was good advice; it didn't matter to me what rating was attached to it's imparter.

Im trying to get through My system, again. Went online to play on ICC, 5 min chess, and dropped 200 points.🙁
Im lost in a positional sense, but get by tacticaly.
Maybe some posters still have to get a decent rating, or are provisional.
If they are really 1200, and act 2200, then waste 'em.
I have imparted pearls of wisdom i got from my chess teachers, all masters, but get flamed anyway, especialy from 1600's who think they know everything, and i dont.
Thats ok, ill shutup, and keep my wisdom to myself.
If some people would take a piece of data, and look at it from an analytical viewpoint, instead of just reacting, and puting in their negative viewpoints all the time, they might learn something and improve.
I allways at least look at the words first, take it for anything of value, then reject it, or use it.
If one were to refuse a potential diamond, because it came in a plain brown bag, one would never get rich. -grandmouster

😀

It seems that some people are misunderstanding this thread (perhaps I am the one not getting it, but not from my point of view 😉 ). Nobody said that they simply ignore posts from lower rated players. The original post by RahimK was about assigning a value to the posts of people who you are not somewhat familiar with. Having a 2000+ rating doesn't mean that your posts will be any good, nor does having an 1100 rating mean that you don't have anything of value to offer. In general terms, however, the higher the rating the better chance of any lines of analysis or positional ideas have of being sound. Also, it would be difficult for an 1800+ player to get useful improvement advice from a solid 1300 ish.

Originally posted by Shinidoki
I do check the ratings of posters, but only when they post analysis and variations....

In which case, if its lower I pay less attension, Higher, I pay more - simple as that really.

If your reading opinions on openings or listening to discussions of FIDE/RHP rules or ethical play I think ratings are rather irelevant.

^ in which case, I will pay more attension to posts that use real words and grammer.

See if you can find the irony of this post.

When it has to do with chess - yes, his rating is interesting.
But otherwise I tend to find postings from people with social competence more rewarding to read.

The forums of RHP is tormented by people that likes more to attack other people rather than in a friendly tone shear their views.
I don't really think they have any friends in real life and therefore are hunting for new victims at various site's discussion forums.
No names given...