lichess.org
Donate

I noticed some people that play really bad chess have higher ratings

Effective play by human players does not always have to be objectively correct. It can be "really bad" but still get results because the players' human opponents are fallible.

I expect that the games of Mikhail Tal (World Champion 1960-1961) would be judged much less accurate by modern machines than those of his contemporary peers would be. I don't have the time or inclination to try and verify that, but I expect that it is true. Tal's speculative sacrifices were often unsound but so difficult to meet in practice that they paid off for him.

Or do you have something else in mind when you refer to "really bad chess"?
Performance isn't the same as skill

Every player can have a bad performance, maybe they are tired or have a bad day.

The difference is that they have a better understanding and this turns into better quality of games overall.

I can blunder every tactic or even hang mate in 1 if I'm sleepy. I can play well positionally but not tactically.

In a good day were my senses are sharp I can get a minimum of 8.5/10 vs a 1800 player.

> If you played me tired then you would be shocked at how bad I am!

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.