Some don't give a **** about their rating. And some do and take the rating very seriously.
I hate to be playing people hwho has a skill 300 points above their rating. When I lose, I lose a lot of rating points. If I win, I only get a few points when I really am worth a lot more.
By delibirately skewing the rating system is not fair to people who see their own rating seriously.
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasI agree. I usually move rapidly (I hate seeing games waiting for me to move), but when I'm facing someone like that I usually make a point of waiting for their rating to recover, even if it means eating into my timebank. You can't always blame the players, unfortunately (their rating usually drops as a result of timeouts, and there are always strong OTB players with a ridiculously low provisional rating), but you get the occasional sandbagger who gives the whole system a bad name.
I hate to be playing people hwho has a skill 300 points above their rating. When I lose, I lose a lot of rating points. If I win, I only get a few points when I really am worth a lot more.
.
Originally posted by Restless SoulI disagree. While I think that I could beat any 1800 on a good day, I'm simply not consistent enough to regularily do it, therefor I deserve a 1600ish rating.
Maybe at master lvl, but at club lvl ratings arn't that accurate...even still, people let a silly number that means nothing go to their heads
Originally posted by FabianFnasI don't know the rating of Morphy, Lasker or Capablanca, but that doesn't stop me appreciating their skill. I can easily tell that they could play positions much better than I can.
Because it is the only measure one can compare ones skill with others...
Instead of players putting their pride in a 4 digit value, it may help them better if they considered what they would have to put in a hypothetical "My Best Games" book.