Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

The Closed Sicilian: The Dangerous Pawn Push


  • 13 months ago · Quote · #121

    Yereslov

    shepi13 wrote:

    If I played on chesscube I might be higher rated then carlsen if Yereslov is 1825 there!!

    Do a test then, and then come back with the results.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #122

    Yereslov

    bongcloudftw wrote:

    yereslov i challenge you to a live game!!!

    You would probably play the Bongcloud and easily get crushed.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #123

    mashanator

    You are either an idiot or a very bad troll Yereslov, or most likely, both.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #125

    Irontiger

    Yereslov wrote:
    Irontiger wrote:
    Yereslov wrote:
    MathBandit wrote:

    If you think opening knowledge is the only thing stopping you from beating a GM, you could easily beat any lower-rated Club player even a piece down. Your online rating is such that you would play people far worse than low-rated Club. The worst thing that those missing 'rarer sidelines' could POSSIBLY cost you is being down a whole piece.
    Ergo, if your knowledge of chess *removing the opening (and move-order) completely from the equation* was even Expert level - again, you claim it to be GM level- you'd easily be 1600 rated in Online Chess. 

    I am 1700+ on ChessCube. That's where I play chess. 

    My all time high is 1825, but I have beat 2000+ and 2200+ rated players.

    And it's well-known that chesscube ratings aren't inflated the slightest.

    Have you been on the site?

    I have played on both Chess.com and Chesscube.

    The rating difference is only very slight. 

    For the sake of science, I created tonight an account on chesscube, under the name Irontiger_che (Irontiger was already registered but it is not me).

    After 20 games (16W / 3L / 1D), I reached a 1871 rating, which is about as high as I ever got on chess.com. Add to this the fact that I am tired, not used to the interface (I got two of my losses immediately after subscribing), I expect to reach a safe 2000 if I continue, which is a difference of rating of 250 points.

    So much for the "slight" difference in ratings.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #126

    Yereslov

    pfren wrote:
    mashanator wrote:

     ...or most likely, both.

    Bingo.

    You like to fit in.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #127

    Yereslov

    Irontiger wrote:
    Yereslov wrote:
    Irontiger wrote:
    Yereslov wrote:
    MathBandit wrote:

    If you think opening knowledge is the only thing stopping you from beating a GM, you could easily beat any lower-rated Club player even a piece down. Your online rating is such that you would play people far worse than low-rated Club. The worst thing that those missing 'rarer sidelines' could POSSIBLY cost you is being down a whole piece.
    Ergo, if your knowledge of chess *removing the opening (and move-order) completely from the equation* was even Expert level - again, you claim it to be GM level- you'd easily be 1600 rated in Online Chess. 

    I am 1700+ on ChessCube. That's where I play chess. 

    My all time high is 1825, but I have beat 2000+ and 2200+ rated players.

    And it's well-known that chesscube ratings aren't inflated the slightest.

    Have you been on the site?

    I have played on both Chess.com and Chesscube.

    The rating difference is only very slight. 

    For the sake of science, I created tonight an account on chesscube, under the name Irontiger_che (Irontiger was already registered but it is not me).

    After 20 games (16W / 3L / 1D), I reached a 1871 rating, which is about as high as I ever got on chess.com. Add to this the fact that I am tired, not used to the interface (I got two of my losses immediately after subscribing), I expect to reach a safe 2000 if I continue, which is a difference of rating of 250 points.

    So much for the "slight" difference in ratings.

    It depends on the players. Some 1800's play very well.

    And some play like crap. Avoid the blitz players.

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #128

    makhnoukh

    pfren wrote:

    By playing chess, probably?

    Your analysis snippet is plain ridiculous.

    9...b5? allows the natural 10.e5, when Black stands as good as lost.

    You are funny.

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #129

    GreenCastleBlock

    makhnoukh wrote:

    You are funny.

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #130

    Irontiger

    GreenCastleBlock wrote:
    makhnoukh wrote:

    You are funny.

     

    Damn, you got there first.

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #131

    makhnoukh

    GreenCastleBlock wrote:
    makhnoukh wrote:

    You are funny.

     

    lol


Back to Top

Post your reply: