Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Cutoff Rating When No Longer Patzer ?


  • 13 months ago · Quote · #161

    RatDogFriday

    indian1960 wrote:

    I think it's 2000 when you actually begin to become a ligitimate CHESSPLAYER. Until then, you're just a woodpushing tilapia. Kenneth Colby believes it is anyone under 2200. But, I think that's a little harsh. What do you think ? And be honest with us and yourself.

    Based on conversations I have had with experienced players above 2200 locally, they are generally tits up against anyone who is 1800 or higher. That means that they actually pay attention to the opening during the game. Otherwise they figure they can play themselves out of any difficulties. Its not an unreasonable observation if you actually play OTB chess. I mean, someone rated 2 classes below you will usually makes an error you can take advantage of, but of course, don't count on it.

    In the end(game), your skill will prevail.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #162

    chessman1504

    nameno1had wrote:
    TetsuoShima wrote:

    nameno no the facts dont remain, ims and gms still use and teach capablancas theories. thats probably one ofthe reason  they are no patzers and sub 2400 are patzers....

    to a GM they are but the are chess gods compared to you... and yes, even Capablanca, though he was instrumental in the discovery of a few examples of chess theory still used today, you argue all you like, but the game isn't the same...

    Capablanca is less than sub-2400??? I know chess openings have changed in the past century, but I think such an assertion is flat-out wrong. Generally, I don't just parrot what computers had to say about a player's level of skill, but the fact that very strong computers consider Capablanca the most accurate player is certainly significant. Just because computers say it doesn't make it true, but certainly, opening theory aside, Capablanca was stronger than sub-2400 level???

    http://en.chessbase.com/home/TabId/211/PostId/4007621

    Of course openings are a large part of chess, especially the modern game. However, I'm talking about the game as a whole, and I'm disputing that sub-2400 players are not only stronger all-around players than Capablanca but that they are so much stronger than he is to be considered chess gods compared to him.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #163

    chessman1504

    To add to the above, IM Silman also said if Capablanca or Lasker faced him at his prime in a match of ten games up, they'd go 10-0 with some draws. Of course, Silman isn't always right and he might be humble or biased, but certainly he in his prime was higher than sub-2400 level???

    http://www.chess.com/article/view/emanuel-lasker-tactical-monster

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #164

    nameno1had

    chessman1504 wrote:
    nameno1had wrote:
    TetsuoShima wrote:

    nameno no the facts dont remain, ims and gms still use and teach capablancas theories. thats probably one ofthe reason  they are no patzers and sub 2400 are patzers....

    to a GM they are but the are chess gods compared to you... and yes, even Capablanca, though he was instrumental in the discovery of a few examples of chess theory still used today, you argue all you like, but the game isn't the same...

    Capablanca is less than sub-2400??? I know chess openings have changed in the past century, but I think such an assertion is flat-out wrong. Generally, I don't just parrot what computers had to say about a player's level of skill, but the fact that very strong computers consider Capablanca the most accurate player is certainly significant. Just because computers say it doesn't make it true, but certainly, opening theory aside, Capablanca was stronger than sub-2400 level???

    http://en.chessbase.com/home/TabId/211/PostId/4007621

    Of course openings are a large part of chess, especially the modern game. However, I'm talking about the game as a whole, and I'm disputing that sub-2400 players are not only stronger all-around players than Capablanca but that they are so much stronger than he is to be considered chess gods compared to him.

    I am not sure who you are disputing, but I don't thing Capa was or is a patzer, even by todays standards, in spite of the fact, the game isn't the same today. The relative strength of players seems to have increased over time, but the elite GM's in my mind would be on par with on another's talent or perhaps better said, belong at the same table playing each other.

    I was trying demonstrate the relativety and subjectivety of some one being a patzer, depending upon who we are talking about. (Example) a 2400 might be a considered a patzer to Carlsen or Anand, but to me they are like a chess god or playing against an engine.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #165

    chessman1504

    nameno1had wrote:
    TetsuoShima wrote:

    nameno no the facts dont remain, ims and gms still use and teach capablancas theories. thats probably one ofthe reason  they are no patzers and sub 2400 are patzers....

    to a GM they are but the are chess gods compared to you... and yes, even Capablanca, though he was instrumental in the discovery of a few examples of chess theory still used today, you argue all you like, but the game isn't the same...

    Well, I found this wording confusing, in any case. Now that I think of it, you were saying even Capablanca would look like a chess god to Tetsuo Shima? I was confused because I thought "they" referred to the sub-2400 players and "even Capablanca" referred to who they would smash since it is next tocTetsuo Shima. I thought the last sentence of chess changing was intended to clarify that that was the intention, but I suppose I was mistaken.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #166

    chessman1504

    nameno1had wrote:
    chessman1504 wrote:
    nameno1had wrote:
    TetsuoShima wrote:

    nameno no the facts dont remain, ims and gms still use and teach capablancas theories. thats probably one ofthe reason  they are no patzers and sub 2400 are patzers....

    to a GM they are but the are chess gods compared to you... and yes, even Capablanca, though he was instrumental in the discovery of a few examples of chess theory still used today, you argue all you like, but the game isn't the same...

    Capablanca is less than sub-2400??? I know chess openings have changed in the past century, but I think such an assertion is flat-out wrong. Generally, I don't just parrot what computers had to say about a player's level of skill, but the fact that very strong computers consider Capablanca the most accurate player is certainly significant. Just because computers say it doesn't make it true, but certainly, opening theory aside, Capablanca was stronger than sub-2400 level???

    http://en.chessbase.com/home/TabId/211/PostId/4007621

    Of course openings are a large part of chess, especially the modern game. However, I'm talking about the game as a whole, and I'm disputing that sub-2400 players are not only stronger all-around players than Capablanca but that they are so much stronger than he is to be considered chess gods compared to him.

    I am not sure who you are disputing, but I don't thing Capa was or is a patzer, even by todays standards, in spite of the fact, the game isn't the same today. The relative strength of players seems to have increased over time, but the elite GM's in my mind would be on par with on another's talent or perhaps better said, belong at the same table playing each other.

    I was trying demonstrate the relativety and subjectivety of some one being a patzer, depending upon who we are talking about. (Example) a 2400 might be a considered a patzer to Carlsen or Anand, but to me they are like a chess god or playing against an engine.

    Nevermind what was written here (I made a grammatical correction that was actually unnecessary. I was confused by my own sentence!)

  • 4 weeks ago · Quote · #167

    Superqueen500

    1700 Fide = Cut off for patzer

    Which means I still am a patzer.

  • 4 weeks ago · Quote · #168

    DrCheckevertim

    Thanks for bumping a year old thread to tell us.


Back to Top

Post your reply: