Forum

I watched a video about one of MVL's games and I heard, in the beginning about how good MVL is at "gium bullet chess". I know what bullet chess is, but where does the "gium" come in?

All the chess associations in the us don't even allow me, rated 1818, to play against anyone in the world rated over 2000. What is this? 1400s can play against 1800s but why can't 1800s play against 2000s? For example, the highest section in almost all CCA tournaments is an open/premier/major section open only to those over 1900. The next section is an under 2000 section filled with 1500s, 1600s, and 1700s. Very few 1900s or even 1800s. This makes no sense at all!

I'm a novice player. I wanted to play USCF online rated games and I discovered that Chess for All provided some. I've now played two G15/5 rapid online tournaments sponsored by Chess For All and hosted on lichess. I'll only address the latest tournament. I entered the U1000 section. Every player had a provisional rapid rating (probably using some sort of lichess rating system). There were 155 players. I was the only player entered with a rating under 1000. So, in an U1000 tournament, 154 of 155 players were rated over 1000. Three were rated over 2000. A hundred or more were rated over 1500. My first opponent was rated over 1500, the next over 1300, and the next over 1200 -- roughly three, two, and one standard deviations above my rating. I am perplexed. How can players with ratings over 1500, even provisional, never mind 2000, enter an U1000 tournament? Especially dumbfounding was that there was an U1600 section; it seems that players with provisional ratings between 1000 and 1600 would be required to enter the U1600 section. My earlier tournament had the same characteristic -- in the U1100 section, the winner was playing over 2300. You might guess that I don't plan to enter another Chess for All tournament. I won't die if I lose, but I am not eager to play against a player who is rated 700 points above me. Is there any explanation for this? Does Chess For All accept any entry in any section that will pay to play? P.S. The U1000 results were posted. The average player rating was 1487. In an U1000 section? The top three "performed" at 2145, 2020, and 1943. P.S.S. The U1600 results were also posted. The average player rating was 1798. Really? The top three performed at 2473, 2460, and 2421. Their lichess ratings are 2275, 2421, and 2178 .... respectively. In an U1600 tournament? Why bother?

In a tourney last night, I took 3rd. Someone won 2nd with the same record. How do these tiebreaks work?

Sometimes, like in the games shown, my lower rated opponents play really accurately. I don't know how to make them falter and win. Next game:

Don't usually do this. In my games, the other player is usually about my level, which means the 11th or 12th blunder decides the game, and that's not interesting. 2 things, tho. they're about 100 points above me, and no blunders. (Mistakes don't count as blunders so phffffffft!) Here are my comments. (I'm playing black) …c6. Turning the Slav into a Caro Kann type position. The French, Slav and Caro Kann are all similar and thus a great beginner trilogy of openings. And I am VERY beginner. I’ve a big development lead and an open C file. Who needs 0-0? …Rc2 (Engine wanted c3, I’m guessing to maintain control of the b1 square.) …Re8. Mouseslip. Was meant for c8. …dxe4. Engine wanted bxe4. I don’t know why. …Ke7 worse move of the game. King heading for cover and didn’t need to. After rc8, my King is fine. g3. I’da called it a blunder, but the engine likes it. ??? ….g5 grabs me a bishop. …fxg5 See? Now I get him to trade rooks, then grab his queenside pawns for Queening opportunities. Should be good from here. ...kf6 is fine, but rc4 was better. ...rb3 plotting b2 forcing an exchange. Bishop has plenty of time to capture the rook and get back to cover the d1 square. …bf6. Yep yep They resign a few moves later when I start knocking off pawns.

Ah, so many different time controls. What's your favorite time controls? 10sec | 10sec-1sec delay | 30sec | 1min | 1min-1sec delay | 2min | 2min - 1 sec delay | 3min | 3min - 1 sec delay (UTT and TT) | 3min - 2 sec delay | {Is there a 4min time control?} | 5min | 5min - 1 sec delay | 5min - 5 sec delay | {Is there a 6min time control?} | {Is there a 7min time control?} | {Is there 8min time control?} | {Is there 9min time control?} 10min | 10min - 10sec delay | 11min no | 12 min no | 13min no | 14min no | 15min | 15min - 10sec delay | 16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29 No | 30min | 60 min | OTHER? _____ Whats your favorite time control? Mines 30min or 10min

I am going to play with @ricechessmaster1. US Amateur Team West he is registered as maybe 1400 USCF and I am 1650 USCF rounding up. The remaining 2 players can have an average of lets say about 2075, but nobody would join us with that rating. So if you are 1500+ on chess.com or USCF and are interested tell me below.

I know many of you found my previous work controversial, so I changed it to this.

What is the best-attacking opening for Black?

I won a trophy! Entirely meaningless, but somehow I'm chuffed.

Hello. Last Monday I tried to join the USCF tournament (10|0 time control). And a messaged poped up saying I couldn't join and I had to refresh the page or something like that . . . . . . I refreshed the page a lot and nothing worked, at the time I was in this club. CAn you please give me a tip on what to do for next time..? thanks|-|-|-Squealingnickel

I can't imagine getting crushed like this vs someone so much lower! Why am i always playing so passively? And how is it that such weak opponents can beat me so easily all the time ?

Joan DuBois <JDuBois@uschess.org> To:my_mail_hub@yahoo.com,Alex Dunne,contactlog Jul 30 at 9:10 AM Hi Mr. Parsons, Thank you for your email. Any games related to US Chess Correspondence Chess need to go through our Correspondence Chess Director Alex Dunne regardless of whether you are playing through the mail; email; ICCF Webserver for our Walter Muir. We do not offer CC play on any other chess site. Your email has been copied to CCD Alex Dunne so you may also hear from him on this. Thanks again - Joan DuBois Affiliate Relations Associate jdubois@uschess.org / 931 787 1234 ext 123 Tournament Life Announcement (TLA) / Advertising tla@uschess.org US Chess - PO Box 3967, Crossville, TN 38557 www.uschess.org -----Original Message----- From: U.S.Chess Web Inquiry <web-registration@uschess.org> Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2018 1:49 PM To: Joan DuBois <JDuBois@uschess.org>; Alex Dunne <cchess@uschess.org>; contactlog <contactlog@uschess.org> Subject: Contact Form # 51644: Correspondence Chess SUBMITTED TO WEB CONTACT PAGE From: Christopher Scott Parsons 16693903 <my_mail_hub@yahoo.com> Date: Sat 28 Jul 2018 1:48:37 pm CDT Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36 Subject: Contact Form # 51644: Correspondence Chess I was interested in playing correspondence chess with other USCF members, via the Chess.com site and US Chess club there, where there are already rated USCF games being played and monitored. I was wondering if it would be acceptable to use the site and submit the results the same way that the other online games are submitted for rating ? I thought I had read that email could perhaps be an acceptable alternative to snail mail, if the Chess.com site doesn't seem to be an acceptable alternative to snail mail. Could you please reply with all of the pertinent information to my email and also forward a copy to the US Chess club at Chess.com, if indeed this is an alternative means to play rated correspondence ? Thanks in advance for your time and consideration. In conclusion, it appears that the USCF has made an exclusive contract to do business with ICCF, to do all correspondence on their site, which I think is a mistake on the part of the USCF, not only monetarily, but simply from a public relations standpoint. Exclusive contracts such as their's, only serve to provoke the aggitation of their members or potential members. For me personally, it is too much in violation of anti-trust sentiments. It forces members to have to purchase a 2nd membership to another chess site, to use a service that shouldn't be relegated to anyone place. The USCF should have recognized this ahead of time and not appeared so desperate for revenue. In my opinion, Chess.com has a far superior website in terms of services offered and community of users. I am of the mindset that we members here and perhaps even potential members here, should consider a petition to both Chess.com and the USCF, to get an arrangement made to be able to play correspondence here. I already pay for a premium membership to both entities. I should haven't to pay even more to play rated correspondence online. Don't even get me started about the allowable use of engines on ICCF...

In addition to the main event, Chess.com will host five blitz side events in the US Chess Members Only club during the week of December 11, each event with a dedicated prize fund of $500: Friday, December 11, 6 p.m. Pacific time: https://www.chess.com/live#t=1868404 Saturday, December 12, 6 p.m. Pacific time: https://www.chess.com/live#t=1868405 Sunday, December 13, 6 p.m. Pacific time: https://www.chess.com/live#t=1868406 Thursday, December 17, 6 p.m. Pacific time: https://www.chess.com/live#t=1868407 Friday, December 18, 6 p.m. Pacific time: https://www.chess.com/live#t=1868408 All players must also abide by all rules and site policies found at Chess.com/agreement and cooperate fully with Chess.com's fair play detection team. All side events will feature a seven-round 5+0 Swiss open to all users in the US Chess Members Only club. Each side event will feature $500 in cash prizes. Prizes: 1st Place: $250 2nd Place: $150 3rd Place: $100 4th-10th Place: 1-Month Chess.com Diamond membership Users may play in as many side events as they choose. Users who are not members of the US Chess Members Only club will not be able to access the event. All players must abide by all rules and site policies found at Chess.com/agreement and cooperate fully with Chess.com's fair play detection team.

Is FIDE online arena worth it?

For more information on the US Championship Online Qualifier, visit the tournament guide. Players looking to register for the 2001-2400 section and the 2400+ section should fill out the registration form. Rating thresholds for each preliminary event are based on Chess.com Rapid ratings. Completed: U1600 Section: https://www.chess.com/tournament/live/u1600-us-championship-online-qualifier-1723761 1601-2000 Section: https://www.chess.com/tournament/live/1601-2000-us-championship-online-qualifier-1723763 2001-2400 Section: https://www.chess.com/tournament/live/2001-2400-us-championship-online-qualifier-1723764 2400+ Section: https://www.chess.com/tournament/live/2400-us-championship-online-qualifier-1723765 Final Swiss: https://www.chess.com/tournament/live/uscoq-final-swiss-1822508 Final Bracket: December 6 Final Round Robin: December 11-18

First rated tournament...first rated a** kicking. As expected. The whole "play well except for 1 move" routine still going strong. Maybe this will be the kick in the pants I need to work on my game. Or...at least turn off Youtube during the games. Mmmmm, I don't know. Maybe just lower my expectations?

Can someone explain some things to me about the results of the U1600 qualifier. There are several people missing as compared to the number of participants in the event, such that my own placement is several spots higher on USCF. Also, I only see 7 rounds and even from those seven rounds, many people have U's instead of a game there. Finally, it looks like the winner of the bracket was an NM? I don't understand why a national master was able to participate in the U1600 bracket on a brand new account. I didn't know where to pose these questions and I'm sure other people would like some clarity on these matters as well.

Its not loading for me