1300's are stronger than 1500's

@soni777new It's not like the economics example at all. If you pick up a random guy from the streets and ask them to play chess, they probably at most barely know the basic principles. 1800 understands chess much better and will easily win ANY random non-practiced player 9 times out of 10.

But if you define having skill as being a GM, then obviously nobody but GM's have any skills. Regular no-hobbyists will lose constantly to players you say have no skills at all.

@laatikko I'm not saying you need to be a GM to be skilled at chess, I'm saying you need to be a CM to be skilled at chess. My point is this: if you asked a CM to list all the things he/she knew about chess, I, and you also, would be aware of most of the things the CM listed (except for some endgame specifics). These are the basics of chess - there isn't any secret knowledge you need to reach this level. However, the reason I'm not at that level is that I haven't yet learnt to apply all this knowlege to my games, or to use the word I used in my original post, I haven't mastered it. Going back to my analogy, I know some things about economics that are not general knowledge, so I might win some arguments against the average person on these topics. However, I have not understood all the basics of economic theory and how to apply it, presumably what is taught in a university degree. A recognised university degree would be proof that I've understood the basics of economics, allowing me to progress to a more advanced level. FIDE offers a title to demonstrate that you have understood the basics of chess: the CM title. Further titles are the equivalent of postgraduate degrees - an IM is already an expert in chess while a GM is a world-leading expert. Someone who hasn't yet achieved the basic level of CM, such as myself, still needs to work before he/she can accurately be described as skilled.

@soni777new: Sorry but that is one of the most asinine assumptions I've ever heard in my life. Ratings are a measurement of APPLIED skill levels. You don't suddenly become skilled in chess because you gain the CM title. By your logic, 2199 has no skill but 2200 (CM) does. By definition, your rating increases in chess BECAUSE your skill increases. Not vice versa.

Another thing: Your rating isn't a TRUE measure of skill but rather your performance rating (as someone else mentioned). You may know things, you may be skilled at chess, but you get nervous at tournaments and forget. That doesn't mean you aren't skilled or have mastered though skills. It means your performance in tournaments has not yet reflected that skill.

Also, using your logic -- A master level player who doesn't have a FIDE rating but plays chess on the casual for fun has no skill because he doesn't have the titles to prove it. That is just stupid. I'm sorry.

Just for funsies: Would you say someone that is 1750 skill level that has beaten a 2300 CM in a standard (60+ minute) game OTB to be skilled? Or nah... ?

Does anyone else use Zen mode for the willful ignorance it provides regarding their opponents ranking?

That and being able to get the board zoomed to more or less full screen with F11...

It is not clear why the player with a rating of 1700 says that he 1300. Personally, I realized you're slow at bullet, that's all.

Guys , take it easy.
A 1200 is stronger than an 800.
A 1700 is stronger than a 1300.
A 2500 is stronger than a 2000.
A 3000 (eg. Magnus) is stronger than a 2500.

Simple things are often the correct ones.

@BlunderDownUnder sometimes it's nice specially which you trick yourself to think that someone stronger than you is actually weaker, but I don't like for the quiet games when I'm starting to guess it's a 18XX player making solid moves and there is no material left and that I should have went for some complications instead.

Now I'm starting to think 1600's are even easier to beat then 1500's, look at this game against a 1603 player:

@Mazzeltov3 ,
Good job...
Seems you can beat anybody ,with a CPL of almost 0.
You must be a genius or something...
Why don't you challenge the Grandmasters and forget about the poor amateurs??

@Fates2 I think I will, but seriously, challenge me if you want at 2+1 or longer