Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Why do I suck (1500)?


  • 21 months ago · Quote · #1

    AdamRinkleff

    You can look at my game history if you want. What am I doing wrong? Where am I weakest? What should I do to get better?

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #2

    AdamRinkleff

    Tony_Scarboni wrote:

    Well according to the scientific stats, take heart in a 1500 rating here being about a 1700 in USCF.  

    I'm rated 600 here.

    im actually 1850 uscf. dont know if ill ever figure out how to reach 1900.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #3

    flooperpaaf

    Its better you show some games in the thread which you feel represent your playing level.

    And why you, I and many others suck is becouse we dont practice enough.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #4

    Rasparovov

    1500 is 1700 USCF? Then I'm almost 2200 and that's not right.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #5

    Scottrf

    Rasparovov wrote:

    1500 is 1700 USCF? Then I'm almost 2200 and that's not right.

    Not in online chess which is too high, blitz numbers are generally a good amount lower than USCF.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #6

    APawnCanDream

    Rasparovov wrote:

    1500 is 1700 USCF? Then I'm almost 2200 and that's not right.

    I don't know how USCF converts to FIDE (which I assume you use), but blitz rating here is something like 150-200 points below OTB USCF rating supposively. I think the OP was the one who did the study actually. The "Online" ratings at Chess.com are inflated compared to USCF ratings though.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #7

    worstovalltime

    U all suck if what Above is true.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #8

    waffllemaster

    It'd be really awesome if I were as good as 2100+ USCF, but it is not true.  Live ratings can be deceiving, you have to play in tournaments to be sure. 200 points lower?  Well again there's no strict conversion.  Even my OTB rating, inactive as it is, is higher than 1750.

    To the OP.  What are you working on now / recently that's not given you any improvement?  What do you see as your biggest weakness?  I don't have great advice for you, but this will give others more to go on than just looking at your games.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #9

    ivandh

    See this thread for an exhaustive (if useless) discussion:

    http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/why-are-men-better-than-other-men

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #10

    APawnCanDream

    waffllemaster wrote:

    It'd be really awesome if I were as good as 2100+ USCF, but it is not true.  Live ratings can be deceiving, you have to play in tournaments to be sure.

    Yes I definitely take it with a grain of salt (fine, more like a spoon). But it is an interesting and possible correlation that might help give people an estimate where they would rank rating wise if they don't have a USCF rating already. We wouldn't know if someone could translate their abilities from playing online blitz to OTB tournament until they tried, and some may do it better than others, but a loose correlation appears to exist from what I've read and witnessed.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #11

    Scottrf

    Yeah it's a approximate generalisation which seems fairly accurate for most people, not an exact calculation.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #12

    waffllemaster

    Yes, I think the best is + or - 200 in blitz or standard will catch the great majority of people.  Maybe as many as 9 out of 10.

    If they have this, but want even more specific before going to a tournament, I'd find a local club and visit it a few times.  Pay attention to how well you do against players (and ask them their rating).  Let's say you beat a 1500 because he drops his queen.  Well that doesn't count lol, it's a club game.  When I say pay attention I mean are you getting decent positions out of the opening?  Are you able to convert an advantage in the endgame?  When you're a little worse do you put up good resistance?  Are the tactics they hit you with easy or hard to find yourself in retrospect? etc.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #13

    Rasparovov

    Scottrf wrote:
    Rasparovov wrote:

    1500 is 1700 USCF? Then I'm almost 2200 and that's not right.

    Not in online chess which is too high, blitz numbers are generally a good amount lower than USCF.

    Blitz USCF or standard time controls? Cus I'm one of those guys that suck at blitz compared to standard.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #14

    APawnCanDream

    Rasparovov wrote:
    Scottrf wrote:
    Rasparovov wrote:

    1500 is 1700 USCF? Then I'm almost 2200 and that's not right.

    Not in online chess which is too high, blitz numbers are generally a good amount lower than USCF.

    Blitz USCF or standard time controls? Cus I'm one of those guys that suck at blitz compared to standard.

    Its blitz Chess.com rating to standard (OTB tournament controls is what I call it) USCF rating.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #15

    Rasparovov

    KingsEye wrote:
    Rasparovov wrote:
    Scottrf wrote:
    Rasparovov wrote:

    1500 is 1700 USCF? Then I'm almost 2200 and that's not right.

    Not in online chess which is too high, blitz numbers are generally a good amount lower than USCF.

    Blitz USCF or standard time controls? Cus I'm one of those guys that suck at blitz compared to standard.

    Its blitz Chess.com rating to standard (OTB tournament controls is what I call it) USCF rating.

    That's a rather retarded formula then. It's just a very general idea of a persons rating that can vary by insane amounts.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #16

    johnyoudell

    Which 1500 troubles you? The blitz or Chess 960?

    I hate my tactics rating but can only get it to inch up.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #17

    Ricardo_Morro

    I would say your greatest need is study of endgame.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #18

    APawnCanDream

    Rasparovov wrote:
    KingsEye wrote:
    Rasparovov wrote:
    Scottrf wrote:
    Rasparovov wrote:

    1500 is 1700 USCF? Then I'm almost 2200 and that's not right.

    Not in online chess which is too high, blitz numbers are generally a good amount lower than USCF.

    Blitz USCF or standard time controls? Cus I'm one of those guys that suck at blitz compared to standard.

    Its blitz Chess.com rating to standard (OTB tournament controls is what I call it) USCF rating.

    That's a rather retarded formula then. It's just a very general idea of a persons rating that can vary by insane amounts.

    Actually the data backs it up well from what I've read and witnessed myself. Here is a link to one recent discussion on the matter (its long, you can skip to the relevent parts).

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #19

    Sunshiny

    KingsEye wrote:
    Rasparovov wrote:
    KingsEye wrote:
    Rasparovov wrote:
    Scottrf wrote:
    Rasparovov wrote:

    1500 is 1700 USCF? Then I'm almost 2200 and that's not right.

    Not in online chess which is too high, blitz numbers are generally a good amount lower than USCF.

    Blitz USCF or standard time controls? Cus I'm one of those guys that suck at blitz compared to standard.

    Its blitz Chess.com rating to standard (OTB tournament controls is what I call it) USCF rating.

    That's a rather retarded formula then. It's just a very general idea of a persons rating that can vary by insane amounts.

    Actually the data backs it up well from what I've read and witnessed myself. Here is a link to one recent discussion on the matter (its long, you can skip to the relevent parts).

    Blitz shouldn't be compared with standard. The data is junk.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #20

    APawnCanDream

    Sunshiny wrote:
    KingsEye wrote:
    Rasparovov wrote:
    KingsEye wrote:
    Rasparovov wrote:
    Scottrf wrote:
    Rasparovov wrote:

    1500 is 1700 USCF? Then I'm almost 2200 and that's not right.

    Not in online chess which is too high, blitz numbers are generally a good amount lower than USCF.

    Blitz USCF or standard time controls? Cus I'm one of those guys that suck at blitz compared to standard.

    Its blitz Chess.com rating to standard (OTB tournament controls is what I call it) USCF rating.

    That's a rather retarded formula then. It's just a very general idea of a persons rating that can vary by insane amounts.

    Actually the data backs it up well from what I've read and witnessed myself. Here is a link to one recent discussion on the matter (its long, you can skip to the relevent parts).

    Blitz shouldn't be compared with standard. The data is junk.

    I'm not going to go over the same things you went over with Adam in another thread. Whether you choose to accept the conclusions from the data or not is up to you. But if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck I'm going to at least highly consider the probability that it may indeed be a duck. :)


Back to Top

Post your reply: