Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Rating 2000


  • 24 months ago · Quote · #201

    Elubas

    As I have said, though, I don't necessarily view others who are much lower than me as bad players. For example, I think a 1400 is pretty good, even though I'm 500 points higher than that. Of course, good here doesn't mean that I will look at his games (or ask for his commentary Tongue Out) for lessons designed to help me -- obviously I'd look elsewhere. If that's what you mean by relative, then I have no disagreement.

    However, that doesn't change the fact that I have a lot of respect for that level. Sure, the respect wouldn't be quite as high if I were a 1200, but the respect is far from gone at the same time. Because I know that, having tried to cross 1400 myself, there is often a lot that goes into it, and becoming stronger hasn't changed that recognition of mine.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #202

    Elubas

    I'm not sure how I stack with everyone else -- at this point, I still think that someone 500 points lower rated than me is pretty good. Perhaps others view people 500 points lower than them differently? Maybe I just have a strange definition of good. All I can say is that I am better than a 1400, but I don't think that means that we can't both be good, even from my perspective. Sure, one person is more good than the other in this case, but I would, personally, still qualify both as good.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #203

    Elubas

    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • 23 months ago · Quote · #204

    AndyClifton

    -kenpo- wrote:

    Elubas. dasher of hopes. killer of enthusiast dreams and blissful delusions.

    Don't forget user of boldfaceSmile

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #205

    AndyClifton

    solskytz wrote:

    I think about making people feel better about playing, and he thinks about making people feel worse...

     

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #206

    waffllemaster

    Elubas wrote:

    I'm not sure how I stack with everyone else -- at this point, I still think that someone 500 points lower rated than me is pretty good. Perhaps others view people 500 points lower than them differently? Maybe I just have a strange definition of good. All I can say is that I am better than a 1400, but I don't think that means that we can't both be good, even from my perspective. Sure, one person is more good than the other in this case, but I would, personally, still qualify both as good.

    Somehow I doubt when you're playing against a 1400 in a tournament, and we'll say about every 3-5 moves is an inaccuracy you check for exploitability, that you're thinking in your head "this guy is pretty good."


    Sounds like you want to be respectful of people worse than you, which is fine.  Being a worse player doesn't mean they're a worse person or have any less claim to enjoy chess.  Or maybe, funnily enough, you're comparing them to people who don't know how to play.  Yes, a 1400 has made a lot of progress from day 1.  It's still a relative measure, you're just not measuring them up to you.


    So sure... everyone's good.  That's great.  But like you said some are more good than others.  So after the scale is set from day 1 forward simply adjust the adjectives to fit the scale and we're back at a range of bad to good instead of good to more good lol :p

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #207

    Elubas

    Just the fact that I may have to wait 25 moves for this 1400 to give me something, as opposed to say a 600 rated player, who will probably give me free pieces immediately, is indeed enough for me to think that they are pretty good. Not as good as me, but still quite good. Seriously, it happens a lot that when I'm paired down I am surprised at how long they can keep up with me; in terms of the actual result, I will almost always win the game if their rating is accurate, but nonetheless, I do often find myself respecting their play in the process.

    This could, of course, be a case where we believe the same thing but use different words -- indeed, I look at most levels on the scale of "good to more good." That 600 player -- ok, I would not consider him good -- although that has more to do with their progress: as a 600, you still have not learned that much (of course, I would agree that the amount of learning one considers "a lot" is indeed relative, but that's a slightly different issue). If on the other hand I were a 2700, I might still consider the 1400 good, because, despite the fact that, mathematically, I would be just as much better than the 1400 as a 1900 is better than a 600, I know that a 1400 has to learn a lot to get there.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #208

    Elubas

    "Yes, a 1400 has made a lot of progress from day 1.  It's still a relative measure, you're just not measuring them up to you."

    Ok, good point, but I think the main argument on this thread is that having a high rating gets in the way of people looking at those lower than them in such a way.

    But ultimately, yes, I think you've got it -- I'm comparing players to those completely new to chess. And I like doing that because it reminds all of us, who are spread as far as 800-2700 or something, that we have to be pretty good if we are able to utterly destroy a casual or new player.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #209

    waffllemaster

    I guess I tend to do the opposite though :p  I tend to look at a player 600 points below me as "they suck" but also at myself as "I suck."  So my scale tends to go from "more bad to bad" lol.  (Except for 2600 players... they're OK ;)


    I'm also surprised at how tough, say, a 1400 can play me in a tournament.    Sure it seems 9 times out of 10 there will be a game altering mistake on their part (or they'd be rated higher), but you're right it's not as if they're dropping pieces all over the place.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #210

    konhidras

    Whaleeyeman wrote:

    That's because a 1400 OTB federation-rated player equalls about a 2200 rating on chess.com!

    No offense brother, but this has to be proven in a series of games ya know.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #211

    waffllemaster

    Whaleeyeman wrote:

    That's because a 1400 OTB federation-rated player equalls about a 2200 rating on chess.com!

    The online ratings can certainly be misleading.  A 1400 OTB would find it tough (impossible) to get to 2200 in live games though.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #212

    Elubas

    lol, I suppose that's another way to look at it! You start out really bad, but if you work at it enough, you'll just be bad Laughing

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #213

    fissionfowl

    waffllemaster wrote:
    Whaleeyeman wrote:

    That's because a 1400 OTB federation-rated player equalls about a 2200 rating on chess.com!

    The online ratings can certainly be misleading.  A 1400 OTB would find it tough (impossible) to get to 2200 in live games though.

    They would find it tough in "online" chess to get to 2200 as well (although not quite as impossible). In my experience "online" ratings seem to be only 300-400 points inflated on average and that seems to be the consensus as well.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #214

    Expertise87

    I think it depends on a lot of factors, but the higher the online chess ratings go, the less inflated they are. But a lot of players are like me and only spend a few seconds on the majority of their moves in online chess, so someone who is lower rated but spends more time thinking in online chess might well have a higher rating.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #215

    fissionfowl

    Expertise87 wrote:

    But a lot of players are like me and only spend a few seconds on the majority of their moves in online chess, so someone who is lower rated but spends more time thinking in online chess might well have a higher rating.

    Yes, true.

    EDIT:

    Although a 1400 OTB player will have a tough time (to say the least) getting to 2200 online no matter how long they think about their moves.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #217

    WalangAlam

    It's not a coincidence that they all use elo ratings. 

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #218

    babytrex

    It's all about the way that you go about improving. Those who start of with bad habits of playing nothing but speed chess will eventually end up with a high B strength at speed chess, but their standard will probably not break high C. You have to go over your games (with a coach or an engine), see what you did wrong, and improve a little bit from that day forward. Also, it is incredibly important to form a repotoire that you follow every game, even it is 1. g4 or 1.... . g5. It really doesn't matter as long as you have experience with the opening and know the basic patterns and strategies that arise. Tactics are the best way to improve sub 1500 level. Tactics, tactics, playing a lot, and more tactics.

     

    I would also have to reccomend some "pop-out" exercises done by Michael de la Maza such as the ones mentioned in his book "Rapid Chess Improvement" that help your natural chess playing ability. NOT the thousands of hours of tactics, just the piece-moving-around-the-board exrercises. They do help good moves "jump out at you".

     

    Look into Silman as well.

  • 11 months ago · Quote · #219

    AndyClifton

    babytrex wrote:

    Those who start of with bad habits of playing nothing but speed chess will eventually end up with a high B strength at speed chess, but their standard will probably not break high C.

    lol...thank you, Criswell.

  • 11 months ago · Quote · #220

    goldendog

    This mug:


Back to Top

Post your reply: