Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Rating 2000


  • 22 months ago · Quote · #181

    waffllemaster

    @ Elubas
    They can view a level of play any way they want, but if their reasoning is fundamentally wrong (or not there at all) I hope I'd point it out.

    e.g. "At 2000 you understand the game.  And that means you're good."  but the statement isn't supported at all... plutonia is just assuming as a given "at 2000 you understand the game"  why?  "because they use deep strategies"  (again totally assumed).

    -----------------

    I'm not saying to be depressed about your chess elubas.  Like most players I'm pleased with the milestones I've achieved, and at the same time aware of the mistakes and misunderstandings (or non-understandings) I still have.

    When you start to appreciate the level you've achieved too much, that's when you stop improving I think.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.  I'm certainly not hungry to improve like I was a few years ago, and I can enjoy myself playing casually.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #182

    AndyClifton

    Elubas wrote:

    If you're proud of yourself that you made it to 1000, or 1200, or whatever the number, don't feel like you should stop being proud just because you can use relativism to infer that your play is bad.

    Sure.  And notice that in an odd way, the implication of all of this is that relativism is absolute. Laughing

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #183

    DalaiLuke

    AndyClifton, this isn't a discussion of math facts ... it's a simple discussion and tossing about of opinion regarding the idea of "good" and the game of chess.  Nor does it hold the importance some might attach to political debate.  Telling people they "don't have a clue" speaks far more about the author than the subject.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #184

    AndyClifton

    So does making such "insightful" asides, DL...

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #185

    solskytz

    At a certain point I just stopped reading AndyClifton... just lost interest.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #186

    konhidras

    solskytz wrote:

    At a certain point I just stopped reading AndyClifton... just lost interest.

    Then start playing him a game or two.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #187

    solskytz

    That's not a bad idea either, of course - but pretty irrelevant to our discussion, as I think about making people feel better about playing, and he thinks about making people feel worse...

    playing chess with him isn't going to influence this difference in attitude, although it can be fun in itself (provided he isn't abusive during play, of course)

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #188

    APawnCanDream

    solskytz wrote:

    That's not a bad idea either, of course - but pretty irrelevant to our discussion, as I think about making people feel better about playing, and he thinks about making people feel worse...

    playing chess with him isn't going to influence this difference in attitude, although it can be fun in itself (provided he isn't abusive during play, of course)

    I hear it's fine as long as you avoid his knights; they are rough, mostly abusive fellows. I recommend trading them off quickly to ensure a more pleasent game.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #189

    plutonia

    waffllemaster wrote:

    @ Elubas
    They can view a level of play any way they want, but if their reasoning is fundamentally wrong (or not there at all) I hope I'd point it out.

    e.g. "At 2000 you understand the game.  And that means you're good."  but the statement isn't supported at all... plutonia is just assuming as a given "at 2000 you understand the game"  why?  "because they use deep strategies"  (again totally assumed).

    -----------------

     

    We are not computers that reason in terms of 1 and 0, our language must have assumptions to have some validity.

    You and Andy can keep using this logical phallacy that I don't understand something only because somebody understands it even better. But in reality there's a certain level of understanding, it's just a convection I'll admit, but at this certain level you can say that somebody knows [how to do] something.

    A 2000 player is OFFICIALLY called expert by the USCF. That means that the federation of chess thinks the same way I do. If I "don't know what I'm talking about" that means the USCF doesn't either.

     

    And you don't even realize that your (you and Andy) argument would mean, like Elubas said, that even Carlsen is good at chess only "relatively" and his good understanding of chess is "totally assumed", because he would most likely be owned by any modern engine.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #190

    bigmac30

    i think they are fairly solid at 2000 and it is more than enouth to be in a county team fairly high up there are not too many other people higher graded i can play against 1750 players where you can find their gaps in their skill but 2000 2150 far to solid for me they know how to attack and  defend

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #191

    Tmb86

    "phallacy"

    lol 

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #192

    DalaiLuke

    untracked ... enjoy gentlemen and ladies

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #193

    DalaiLuke

    I will say this ... it was a very interesting conversation, but played out (imho) ...  is an understatement :)

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #194

    Elubas

    Andy: As I said though, despite the fact that you can always look at people who do things better than you, I simply appreciate what my level can do. I'm happy with how well I understand chess, even if it's only a, well, 1900 level of chess understanding.

    So, how you interpret that above fact depends on your attitude. You should be satisfied with yourself, yet continue to set goals for yourself (unless you're old, no, just kidding), and avoid being arrogant. I never try to feel good by convincing myself that I'm better than others; I try to feel good by looking at the bright side of my abilities, coupled with my inabilities.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #195

    konhidras

    So where is Andy?

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #196

    Fear_ItseIf

    bigmac30 wrote:

    i think they are fairly solid at 2000 and it is more than enouth to be in a county team 

    2000 is no where near enough to be in a national team. Australia is a fairly weak country and our lowest player in our team is something like 2350

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #197

    waffllemaster

    plutonia wrote:

    We are not computers that reason in terms of 1 and 0, our language must have assumptions to have some validity.

    You and Andy can keep using this logical phallacy that I don't understand something only because somebody understands it even better. But in reality there's a certain level of understanding, it's just a convection I'll admit, but at this certain level you can say that somebody knows [how to do] something.

    A 2000 player is OFFICIALLY called expert by the USCF. That means that the federation of chess thinks the same way I do. If I "don't know what I'm talking about" that means the USCF doesn't either.

     

    And you don't even realize that your (you and Andy) argument would mean, like Elubas said, that even Carlsen is good at chess only "relatively" and his good understanding of chess is "totally assumed", because he would most likely be owned by any modern engine.

    Yes, people have to assume to communicate or even function.  I don't care if you assume or not, I care about your basis for the assumption.

    I'm not saying you don't understand something because someone understands it better.  I'm saying your characterization of their strength is poor.  Sure I'm only saying that because the language you use... but anyway...

    The USCF expert title is not a certification.  There's no governing body that administers a test to see how much you know, it's simply how high your rating is, it's a performance level.  The fact that it's called "expert" is a social construct not a scientific term.  It's such a tongue in cheek argument to say otherwise it's painful to read it every time you bring it up.

    Of course Carlsen's chess is only relatively good.  How else can you measure it?  Ask him which phase of the game he's mastered and I'd expect him to laugh at you.

    When I used the phrase "totally assumed" I was talking about your being so sure on the specifics of how higher rated players play.  "experts win because of deep strategies"  I don't think so.  If by deep you  mean they develop their pieces and push passed pawns without dropping pieces left and right, then sure.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #198

    WalangAlam

    For me anybody that has a title is good! The ratings will tell which one is better than the other.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #199

    Tmb86

    "For me anybody that"

    Anybody who... 


Back to Top

Post your reply: