It is just one extra click, too much? 
But yes, this is an interesting suggestion and maybe it will be considered for future addition.
Show people's ratings
Sort:
They have a recent feature that helps with this. If you look at seeks you will find a player's win, loss, draw record. There vaction time outs and some additional information to help you make an informed decision before you accept a seek.
Well actually, it is 2 extra clicks from where i would like to see their rating. I would like to see their rating on the same page as where they left a comment or made a forum post. Now i have to click on their name from there, then click on 'online chess'. quite a hassle =)
I wasn't referring to seeks, however. :)
i agree with you - it should be easier. but which rating should be shown? the rating they say they are (FIDE, USCF)? or their Online Chess rating? or (soon) their Live Chess rating? :)
I think the chess.com online chess rating rating would be the more acurate... We could personalize that also.
When there are several values for the same subject (a chess rating) in a system, you ussauly want to set up the precedence order in which you want to show those values, so, let's say we use a default order of precedence:
1. chess.com online rating
2. chess.com live rating
3. FIDE rating
4. USCF rating
and then the user can change that order in his preferences. The first available value will be shown.
I think it would be cool to show their online chess rating next to their name. I think it would be even cooler if you could choose to have it next to your name or not. There is no point putting FIDE or USCF ratings next to a persons name, unless documentation were to be required.
A threat to be removed from the site if using incorect FIDE or USCF rating culd be enof... U want to make it easy for rankt players to reveal themselves, it may encuredg them to stay on chess.com (and its always fun to win against a well rankt player!) But your probobly rite that it shuldent be ratings next to a persons name.
So having their rating next to their name is somehow going to allow you to interpret the credibility of the poster/posting? For chess tactics that probably makes sense (unless they are using a chess program). But for general discussions does a 1900 really have more credibility than a 1000? More pomposity perhaps, but credibility? This sounds elitist to me, like college degrees on walls, Masonic signet rings, and BJ Wholesale Club membership cards.
Elite cheerleaders have more pompomosity, but do they have less credibility because of it?
I have a lot, lot more of pomposity myself!!! But do I have a 1900 ranking??? uh?? lol
It is true that a 1000 rated player could give better analysis than a 1900 player. However it's very rare in practice because ratings are fairly good indications of skill and chess understanding. Getting a 1900 rating is not like getting a college degree and being able to say you are professor. While a college could have given a degree for political reasons, you have to earn your ratings through cold hard battles over the chessboard and if you are not knowledgeable about chess you are not going to make it.
In all honesty I've looked at analysis even from 1300 players from this site and it was borderline completely ridiculous. :)
Well the problem about listing ratings is that people can lie about their USCF/FIDE ratings unless we had some verification system so I say if ratings were listed it should be online and live chess ratings.
Zenchess wrote:
It is true that a 1000 rated player could give better analysis than a 1900 player...
Only if that 1000 rating is inaccurate. (For example, a strong player from a foreign country who plays a handful of rated games against 600-800 rated players and receives a low rating himself/herself as a result.)
MattHelfst wrote: Well the problem about listing ratings is that people can lie about their USCF/FIDE ratings unless we had some verification system so I say if ratings were listed it should be online and live chess ratings.
I've never understood this myself. In my experience (in person and on the Net), players who tout their high ratings are usually very weak, while strong players for the most part never brag about their high ratings.
fischer wrote: Zenchess wrote:
It is true that a 1000 rated player could give better analysis than a 1900 player...
Only if that 1000 rating is inaccurate. (For example, a strong player from a foreign country who plays a handful of rated games against 600-800 rated players and receives a low rating himself/herself as a result.)
I think it's wrong to say that a lower rated player cannot possibly give better analysis than a higher rated player. Even though the chance of that is lowered, if you spend enough time analyzing a position, you can get suprisingly deep into it. In fact I have seen very weak players provide very good analysis after they spent alot of time thinking about it. Maybe a 1000 player is different - but lets say you have an 1800 player , he could offer as good analysis as an expert (2000) rated player, if he just puts enough effort in.
fischer wrote: MattHelfst wrote: Well the problem about listing ratings is that people can lie about their USCF/FIDE ratings unless we had some verification system so I say if ratings were listed it should be online and live chess ratings.
I've never understood this myself. In my experience (in person and on the Net), players who tout their high ratings are usually very weak, while strong players for the most part never brag about their high ratings.
Of course there are exceptions like everything. For starters, almost all Gm's, Im's, or anybody with a title that is giving lessons is going to mention their title. If they're the world champion for juniors, they're going to mention it. Almost without exception this is the case. So are these people 'bragging', or just helping you make an informed decision about their strengths?
Also some people just like to brag. It's just a fashion today that you should be humble, 'he who knows does not speak, he who speaks does not know'. Personally I think people who are overly humble just confuse you by making you guess about them all the time. :)
Zenchess wrote:
I think it's wrong to say that a lower rated player cannot possibly give better analysis than a higher rated player. Even though the chance of that is lowered, if you spend enough time analyzing a position, you can get suprisingly deep into it. In fact I have seen very weak players provide very good analysis after they spent alot of time thinking about it. Maybe a 1000 player is different - but lets say you have an 1800 player , he could offer as good analysis as an expert (2000) rated player, if he just puts enough effort in.
Well that's a different story, since the rating gap is much, much smaller. (There's no way a weaker player can give better analysis if there's a 900-point differential.)
I can guarantee you I can give you better analysis about the grand prix attack than a grandmaster that has never seen it and only spent 30 seconds thinking about all the implications of it. I've read books, played literally thousands of games, watched lectures, analyzed games, know all the plans, etc. In fact I can tell you a direct example, of a game in which I played against a fide master. I had already analyzed the game with my friend, and with a computer. We showed it to a grandmaster who was in town (valeriy aleshkulov), and he did not see an absolutely crushing, but untuitive move that would have decided the game (in that variation). It wasn't the computer either that led to that move, my friend actually suggested it. In other words, in chess, rating is not some magic device that makes you understand everything about the game. Someone can put in more time, more effort, and come to an understanding of a particular position equal to a higher rated player.
Often I am curious about a player's rating on chess.com. For instance, a player recently left me feedback on my blog, which indicated he was a strong player, but I wanted to know how strong. I had to click on his name, and his rating still wasn't there. Then I had to click on his 'online chess' button.
I'd prefer it if there was a setting in my preferences to show a rating next to every player name on chess.com. For instance: Zenchess(1749). I believe this is already there for titles, which is nice.