How good are you in chess out of 10 compared to a GM? DO you want to improve?

Just for the record, @MrPushwood and I both rate ourselves 1/10. I have no doubt that he's a much better player than me (on a similar scale, I would give myself 2 or maybe 3 against him, based purely on title). But there is no contradiction in the fact that against a GM we both get 1/10. Our only chance is the same: the GM is having a rough day and blunders horribly, and we are playing pretty well. That's the cruel reality of how well a good rating system can predict the outcome.

It's odd seeing sub-2000 players give themselves 10% chance to beat a GM when the real odds - at best - are less than 1%. That's a difference of an order of magnitude.

I don't mean that as a slight. It's more of a testiment of the strength of GMs.

@clutchnutz Oh, I don't interpret 1/10 to mean 10% chance (but I can see how my comment #31 comes across that way - my bad!). If I wanted to know the probability I could just calculate it based on rating - that's what the rating system is for. It's nowhere near 10%. I guess I meant it more as an off-hand heuristic about things like versatility, knowledge, skill, consistency, stamina, etc.

@clutchnutz while i basically agree in the chance, the rating system is not that good. Im sure there can be different types of 2500 players, one who outclasses the other. Ofc both beat us like always. But there is no way they can have the same class. At least thats my belief. Though im not under 2000, i still have no chance against gm.

I'm not sure of the practicality of separating abstract knowledge or attributes from playing strength. Chess seems like the kind of activity where knowing is doing. I'm sure there are some attributes like physical health, stamina, etc. that might differ between two players of more or less equal knowledge, but generally speaking talking about chess or thinking about chess or even being creative isn't really chess. I think that's why the analogy of an argument is often used to describe gameplay (ex. moving a certain piece is like arguing or asserting that some particular structure is weak or strong, etc)... where knowledge is expressed as the ability to play.

Also, I don't agree that Elo and Glicko rating systems aren't good. They are actually quite good. Rating systems just need a lot of people to work well. Though I do agree that rating systems aren't necessarily an accurate indicator that two people of the same rating will be "evenly matched". Two players of the same rating share the common attribute of likely being able to perform about as well against everyone else.. but as mentioned, there will naturally be more variance between them as individuals.

Of course, I have personally been taking a break from playing chess... doing tactical puzzles (i.e. not chess) and talking about chess on forums (i.e. also, not chess)... so what do I know? lol

@NikolayGrandM Im about your rating and i consider myself and people around my rating 3/10 (vs gm 0/10). In 1800-2000 range people blunder 5-6 times in game and play meaningless or anti-positional moves, for example: 1.Jumping around with horsey(making several moves)early on, looking for cheap tricks. 2.Overextanding pawns to scare you, but end up loosing them.
3.Risking kings safety for no good reason.
there are many of those silly mistakes,so giving me or them 6/10 is funny.

@clutchnutz but how can some draw much higher rated opponents while others get completly destroyed by slightly higher rated ones. They obviously have the same rating Though. Why do some 2500 manage to draw 2700 while others look like weak player when playing 2600 rated players. Doesn't seem to me the epitome of perfectly reliable system.

@Ihavenothing Because the system is not designed to accurately compare two individuals. It's designed to compare the individual with the group. Individuals with the same rating are matched because they have a similar relationship with the group, not necessarily each other. Individual differences are then sorted out through gameplay. At least, that's my understanding. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. I'm just saying the system isn't broken as much as it works differently.

You are wrong and let me tell you why.
First of all i now get centipawn loss of 32 and make on average 2 3 mistakes blunders and inaccuracies in total.
I am improving Daily and searching for stronger players.
I am starting t play interesting games against players like me often getting draws or even winning.
I daily improve in puzzles too and am getting stronger players in my team.
I become better and better and correct my mistakes from my previous games.
As you can see at this rate in a month or 2 i will be a GM hopefully.
BTW I mean GM raiting 2400 so if your classic raiting is 1650 you are 3 out of 10 to a 2300 raiting.
I want to teach beginenrs I am not seeking to teach profesionally just give a few pointers to improve your game.
I also want to gain friends too.

@clutchnutz There is something to the ideas of e.g. "knowledge" and "consistency" in chess.

For example, Simon Williams can outplay 2600 rated GMs if he gets his favourite Dutch Defense setups, and occasionally make it look easy. That's the advantage of having played the Dutch for almost 30 years. If he plays something else, like a Nimzo-Indian, then he will of course play very well, but he doesn't have the same advantage anymore. On the other hand, Magnus Carlsen will, usually, outright beat a 2600 rated GM whether he plays the Dutch or the Nimzo; which he plays is more a matter of preference. That's what I mean by "versatility". Analogously, I can play the Spanish with White at a decent level, because I play it all the time, whereas if you force me to play d4 then I'll make bad decisions because I'm not used to the possible endgames etc. But a GM (or probably any titled player) can play 1.e4 or 1.d4 and play better than me either way. "Versatility".

Similar for consistency. I can have streaks where I seem to play way above my rating, then I'll return to my usual blundering-pieces self. On the other hand a titled player has much better consistency in their play: even if they play a bad game, I've noticed that you can always expect them to shake it off pretty quickly.