I really do think it's fair actually.
Your rating IS your rating.
I'll use another analogy though:
"I have tilted in chess the way I have tilted in poker, and have gotten so frustrated at my play that I'd go off on an idiot-bender and knock my rating down two or three hundred points."
This sounds to me much more like:
"My win-rate in pokertracker is 0.2BB/100, but when I'm actually taking the game seriously and not tilting I'm probably about 3BB/100."
I mean, if you're so bored with chess while you're playing that you are REALLY screwing around and practically trying to do damage to your rating then I guess your statement can make sense.
But it really sounds like you perhaps justify some of your losses by saying, "Well, I was kind of screwing around on that one. I totally would beat that guy if I actually felt like concentrating."
I also suppose that if you are taking the game 100% seriously but are limiting yourself to only a certain opening which you are really unfamiliar with then I guess I can see how your actual rating would not be reflective of your true strength.
But chess has so many 1400-ish players who say, "Yeah, but there were some really bad games in there. I'm really more of a 1700 type player" as well as the 1700-ish player who say they are really about 2000 strength.
And we're talking about ONLY their USCF ratings.
It's like a big joke.
Like all the prisoners in Shawshank who say, "everyone's innocent in here."
Except that it's all the 1400's saying, "but all the 1400's here are actually 1700 strength."
Well, if all these guys REALLY were 1700 strength players then their USCF rating would actually be 1700.
Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.5
Pages provided by ConJelCo