Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Class A player, how many hours to become one?


  • 14 months ago · Quote · #161

    Jimmykay

    AKAL1 wrote:

    Really? I believe that was only for electronic score sheets, to dissuade players from playing out variations on their devices.

    See 15a, and this was made to be in line with FIDE, so this should answer Ziryab's question as well.

    http://www.uschess.org/docs/gov/reports/RulebookChanges.pdf

  • 14 months ago · Quote · #162

    Ziryab

    Jimmykay wrote:
    AKAL1 wrote:

    Really? I believe that was only for electronic score sheets, to dissuade players from playing out variations on their devices.

    See 15a, and this was made to be in line with FIDE, so this should answer Ziryab's question as well.

    http://www.uschess.org/docs/gov/reports/RulebookChanges.pdf

    Right. Also FIDE 8.1 It is forbidden to write the moves in advance, unless the player is claiming a draw according to Article 9.2, or 9.3 or adjourning a game according to the Guidelines of Adjourned Games point 1.a.

    I do not believe the story about John Nunn.


  • 14 months ago · Quote · #163

    johnyoudell

    About the same number of hours as to become a well respected jazz musician.

  • 14 months ago · Quote · #165

    AKAL1

    Jimmykay wrote:
    AKAL1 wrote:

    Really? I believe that was only for electronic score sheets, to dissuade players from playing out variations on their devices.

    See 15a, and this was made to be in line with FIDE, so this should answer Ziryab's question as well.

    http://www.uschess.org/docs/gov/reports/RulebookChanges.pdf

    I really didn't know that until today. UndecidedThanks for pointing it out!

  • 14 months ago · Quote · #166

    clunney

    Ziryab wrote:
    Jimmykay wrote:
    AKAL1 wrote:

    Really? I believe that was only for electronic score sheets, to dissuade players from playing out variations on their devices.

    See 15a, and this was made to be in line with FIDE, so this should answer Ziryab's question as well.

    http://www.uschess.org/docs/gov/reports/RulebookChanges.pdf

    Right. Also FIDE 8.1 It is forbidden to write the moves in advance, unless the player is claiming a draw according to Article 9.2, or 9.3 or adjourning a game according to the Guidelines of Adjourned Games point 1.a.

    I do not believe the story about John Nunn.


    It's a recent change in the rules, and obviously it's been a long time since John Nunn was in the top 10 in the world.... 

  • 14 months ago · Quote · #167

    Ziryab

    clunney wrote:
    Ziryab wrote:
    Jimmykay wrote:
    AKAL1 wrote:

    Really? I believe that was only for electronic score sheets, to dissuade players from playing out variations on their devices.

    See 15a, and this was made to be in line with FIDE, so this should answer Ziryab's question as well.

    http://www.uschess.org/docs/gov/reports/RulebookChanges.pdf

    Right. Also FIDE 8.1 It is forbidden to write the moves in advance, unless the player is claiming a draw according to Article 9.2, or 9.3 or adjourning a game according to the Guidelines of Adjourned Games point 1.a.

    I do not believe the story about John Nunn.


    It's a recent change in the rules, and obviously it's been a long time since John Nunn was in the top 10 in the world.... 

    How recent?

  • 14 months ago · Quote · #169

    Mika_Rao

    nobodyreally wrote:

    @ Ziryab

    Don't say you don't believe someone without giving a reason. I have nothing to gain by making such a story up. So, logic dictates it's a true story.

    End of.

    And about your "How recent". What about looking something up for yourself?

    He may be implying that it was against the rules at the time the story was meant to have taken place, so he doesn't believe JN would say such a thing.

    True you have nothing to gain by making up a story, but people sometimes don't remember perfectly, or are habitual liars.  It's not my impression that either is the case for you, but "logic dictates" it's not so cut and dry.

    Odd that he didn't reply to you in the topic though.

  • 14 months ago · Quote · #171

    Ziryab

    nobodyreally wrote:
    Mika_Rao wrote:
    nobodyreally wrote:

    @ Ziryab

    Don't say you don't believe someone without giving a reason. I have nothing to gain by making such a story up. So, logic dictates it's a true story.

    End of.

    And about your "How recent". What about looking something up for yourself?

    He may be implying that it was against the rules at the time the story was meant to have taken place, so he doesn't believe JN would say such a thing.

    True you have nothing to gain by making up a story, but people sometimes don't remember perfectly, or are habitual liars.  It's not my impression that either is the case for you, but "logic dictates" it's not so cut and dry.

    Odd that he didn't reply to you in the topic though.

    This little story took place about 25-30 years ago. He could have looked up the rules and when they changed before posting.

    But really, I lost interest in this topic already.

    See you around.

    I haven't been on the site much the last couple of days and didn't visit this thread. That's the reason for the paucity of response.

    After my last post though, I tried to find when the rule changed (to define "recent"). I did not find the answerr, but did find abundant evidence that many GMs employed the method described before FIDE outlawed it.

    I no longer doubt your story.

    When USCF tried to change the rules to abolish the practice, there was a firestorm of protest from TDs who said they would not enforce the change. The USCF waffled and modified the form of the rule, essentially leaving it at the discretion of TDs.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #173

    worldlearner0411

    Saying your 1300 strength or 1800 strength does not really say much. A 1800 rated player could be lacking in tactical ability, but have great opening knowledge and positional understanding. A 2000 rated player could have awesome tactical ability, but know very little about the rest of the game.

    I have a friend who was like that. His screen name on here was Unbeilable if anyone knows him. I met him in July of 2012 and he was about 1900 strength. I later realized he knew almost nothing about the game. lol His strength was purly tactical, and I had never seen anything like it. Within 2 years he played and almost took down Sergey Kudrin....that is before he blundered when Sergey had like a minute left on the clock. lol

    It was all because he learned the basic stuff that most of us know already. I remember him reading My System and it being like a revelation to him. 

    Improving your chess game is all about knowing how and what to study, and then being dedicated enough to practice those things. I wrote a chess blog over the topic of improvement, and you should check it out.

    www.advancedchesstraining.blogspot.com

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #174

    Ambassador_Spock

    I think the fellow in question reinforced the point that chess isn't an academic subject ('knew little about the game'), but rather a skillful endeavor ('purely tactical'). 

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #175

    I_Am_Second

    Jimmykay wrote:
    AKAL1 wrote:

    Really? I believe that was only for electronic score sheets, to dissuade players from playing out variations on their devices.

    See 15a, and this was made to be in line with FIDE, so this should answer Ziryab's question as well.

    http://www.uschess.org/docs/gov/reports/RulebookChanges.pdf


    Ill be darned...I write the move down first, and no one has ever said anything.  I dont see how this is "cheating" or what the reason is behind this change.  Until someone says something I will continue to write the move down first.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #176

    Jimmykay

    I do not know if you read the tip to TDs, I_am_Second, but they USCF urges a LOT of leniency on enforcement of this policy, as so many are used to doing it this way.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #177

    Ambassador_Spock

    I believe the reasoning is that it is technically "note taking" (which I can see if you change your mind and write something else).  I used to do it myself but then I realized my opponents could literally see what I was thinking.  So, I started writing my move after I moved and hit the clock so I could do it on my opponent's time.  If my opponent writes their move first, I couldn't be bothered with complaining to the TD although you can technically do that.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #178

    learning2mate

    I write my move after I tap my clock. I don't mind when my opponent writes their move down.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #179

    EscherehcsE

    I_Am_Second wrote:
    Jimmykay wrote:
    AKAL1 wrote:

    Really? I believe that was only for electronic score sheets, to dissuade players from playing out variations on their devices.

    See 15a, and this was made to be in line with FIDE, so this should answer Ziryab's question as well.

    http://www.uschess.org/docs/gov/reports/RulebookChanges.pdf


    Ill be darned...I write the move down first, and no one has ever said anything.  I dont see how this is "cheating" or what the reason is behind this change.  Until someone says something I will continue to write the move down first.

    If you go to page 11 of the pdf, you'll see that there's a "15A. (Variation I) Paper scoresheet variation."

    "The player using a paper scoresheet may first make the move, and then write it on the scoresheet, or vice versa. This variation does not need to be advertised in advance. The scoresheet shall be visible to the arbiter (tournament directors) and the opponent throughout the game."

    The wording is a little unclear, but I'm interpreting it to mean that the TD can allow this variation in a tournament if he wants to, and it doesn't have to be advertised in advance. I'd be surprised if any TDs didn't allow this 15A variation. So chances are very good that if you're using a paper scoresheet, you can continue to write the move down first without worrying too much about the issue.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #180

    Ambassador_Spock

    huh, didn't know that.


Back to Top

Post your reply: