Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Why do I suck (1500)?


  • 20 months ago · Quote · #21

    Sunshiny

    It neither quacks nor walks like a duck.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #22

    AdamRinkleff

    Sunshiny wrote:

    Blitz shouldn't be compared with standard.

    Is that in the Bible somewhere? I don't really see what the problem is. Blitz is chess, and so is standard. Its ridiculous to pretend that changing the time control represents some dramatic shift in the nature of the game.

    Regardless, this has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #23

    Sunshiny

    They're both chess, but they use some different skills. Blitz requires quicker thinking, while standard uses longer calculation skills, and requires more patience. Two persons with the same standard rating might have a much different blitz rating because one is better at seeing the correct moves quickly, while the other is not. So to say Person A has a standard rating of X, does not mean Person A will have a blitz rating of Y.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #24

    skakmadurinn

    What is USCF? Is that the normal elo - fide ratings?

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #25

    Scottrf

    Sunshiny wrote:

    They're both chess, but they use some different skills. Blitz requires quicker thinking, while standard uses longer calculation skills, and requires more patience. Two persons with the same standard rating might have a much different blitz rating because one is better at seeing the correct moves quickly, while the other is not. So to say Person A has a standard rating of X, does not mean Person A will have a blitz rating of Y.

    Nope, so it's lucky nobody is claiming that.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #26

    Sunshiny

    Scottrf wrote:
    Sunshiny wrote:

    They're both chess, but they use some different skills. Blitz requires quicker thinking, while standard uses longer calculation skills, and requires more patience. Two persons with the same standard rating might have a much different blitz rating because one is better at seeing the correct moves quickly, while the other is not. So to say Person A has a standard rating of X, does not mean Person A will have a blitz rating of Y.

    Nope, so it's lucky nobody is claiming that.

    I said they shouldn't be compared, and i'm expanding on what i had said.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #27

    xthread

    You're in NK or do you simply support NK?

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #28

    ivandh

    Can't say, I've never been there.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #29

    Sunshiny

    skullskullskull wrote:
    xthread wrote:

    You're in NK or do you simply support NK?

    Mr. Gadsdenflag here to ask the tough questions.

    Do they use USCF ratings in North Korea?

    It could be a tough question since the answer may be neither of those.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #30

    VULPES_VULPES

    Well, according to your evaluation, AdamRinkleEff, that means I suck at chess.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #31

    Sunshiny

    VULPES_VULPES wrote:

    Well, according to your evaluation, AdamRinkleEff, that means I suck at chess.

    The truth hurts, doesn't it? Want a hug?

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #32

    Sunshiny

    Seriously though, there's always room for improvement. Every time you make significant improvements, you'll look back and see how awful you really were back then.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #33

    Rasparovov

    AdamRinkleff wrote:
    Sunshiny wrote:

    Blitz shouldn't be compared with standard.

    Is that in the Bible somewhere? I don't really see what the problem is. Blitz is chess, and so is standard. Its ridiculous to pretend that changing the time control represents some dramatic shift in the nature of the game.

    Regardless, this has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

    Lol like the bible is some kind of truth. 
    Time controls matters a lot in chess, I for example is playing with perhaps 70% win against a 1200 player at my club at blitz. But in standard (Above 1 hour and increment or added time after a certain amount of moves) I have about 15 wins and 1 draw. 
    Therefore this formula "chess.com blitz +~200 is USCF is complete bullshit and just a coincidence. 
    I could state the same by saying bullet rating at chess.com is within 1000 points of your USCF. This would also in most cases be true but it wouldn't say a damn about an unrated player. 

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #34

    Rasparovov

    Sunshiny wrote:
    VULPES_VULPES wrote:

    Well, according to your evaluation, AdamRinkleEff, that means I suck at chess.

    The truth hurts, doesn't it? Want a hug?

    But is that really the truth? I wouldn't say a 1700 online chess player here on chess.com sucks.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #35

    Rasparovov

    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).

    Well the data also backs my formula that online chess is within 1000 rating of USCF. This is complete nonsense.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #36

    APawnCanDream

    Rasparovov 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).

    Well the data also backs my formula that online chess is within 1000 rating of USCF. This is complete nonsense.

    Well if it does and its repeatable then you have a valid claim. I can't say many will care much about it, though. :)

    @Adam I'm interested in how you have such a high bullet rating but much lower blitz rating here. Do you move to fast (even for blitz) that opponents can capitalize on your errors more unlike in bullet?

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #37

    Sunshiny

    Rasparovov wrote:
    Sunshiny wrote:
    VULPES_VULPES wrote:

    Well, according to your evaluation, AdamRinkleEff, that means I suck at chess.

    The truth hurts, doesn't it? Want a hug?

    But is that really the truth? I wouldn't say a 1700 online chess player here on chess.com sucks.

    It depends on how you look at it. If 1600 is avg., then 1500 would be a little below avg., while 1700 would be a little above. Then again, a 1700 still has much to learn, and could be considered a sucky player in one person's point of view. In another point of view, a 1700 might be making less obvious blunders and the word "suck" might not truly apply. Take an amateur boxer for example. This boxer would probably be better than the average person off the street in a boxing match. The boxer might even be very good against many of the opponent's faced in the arena. Now pit this boxer against a professional boxer in a ring. What does the audience see and think of this boxer?

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #38

    VULPES_VULPES

    I don't like boxing.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #39

    Rasparovov

    Sunshiny wrote:
    Rasparovov wrote:
    Sunshiny wrote:
    VULPES_VULPES wrote:

    Well, according to your evaluation, AdamRinkleEff, that means I suck at chess.

    The truth hurts, doesn't it? Want a hug?

    But is that really the truth? I wouldn't say a 1700 online chess player here on chess.com sucks.

    It depends on how you look at it. If 1600 is avg., then 1500 would be a little below avg., while 1700 would be a little above. Then again, a 1700 still has much to learn, and could be considered a sucky player in one person's point of view. In another point of view, a 1700 might be making less obvious blunders and the word "suck" might not truly apply. Take an amateur boxer for example. This boxer would probably be better than the average person off the street in a boxing match. The boxer might even be very good against many of the opponent's faced in the arena. Now pit this boxer against a professional boxer in a ring. What does the audience see and think of this boxer?

    Well then it's certainly not the truth.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #40

    Rasparovov

    KingsEye wrote:
    Rasparovov 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).

    Well the data also backs my formula that online chess is within 1000 rating of USCF. This is complete nonsense.

    Well if it does and its repeatable then you have a valid claim. I can't say many will care much about it, though. :)

    @Adam I'm interested in how you have such a high bullet rating but much lower blitz rating here. Do you move to fast (even for blitz) that opponents can capitalize on your errors more unlike in bullet?

    It's not valid, it's stupid. Who would care for such a stupid formula, blitz +200 is USCF, it's ridiculous.


Back to Top

Post your reply: