On Nov 3, 5:45 am, "Chess One" wrote:

My writing about my rating was sloppy, so was yours. Mine was because I was
writing to non-chess players, who don't even know which way the ELO scale
goes, up or down.

For that excuse to work, you would need to have written
something along these lines:

"I once was among the top 1% of all casual chess
players worldwide, IMO; this makes me an expert, so
you should listen to me, not to Nil Brennan, who is a
relatively weaker player."


Instead, what you wrote made very specific claims,
including assigning yourself an imaginary rating of
2450 -- a number you now insist was meaningless
to your intended victims/audience (so why bother
inventing it?). It makes for a good story, but the
inconsistencies ruin the plot. For one thing, most
people are not even able to decipher whether a
higher number or a lower one is superior here, as
it could be that zero represents perfection, and GK's
2800+ means he has a long way to go to catch up
with Rob Mitchell.


-- help bot


P.S.: I recently laid claim to 1350 on GetClub, but
lo and behold, my memory failed me! I am not only
below that number (as help bot), but I am locked up
so that I can't get over it and pretend the slip-up
never happened. (grumbles to self)

Hence, I must resort to Plan B: I of course meant
that my peak rating (as nomorechess) was over 1350.
There -- that should fix it.


P.S.S.: Whew! That was a close one.