I did try 1.d4 2.c4 again over at ICC in 15 minute games and got absolutely crushed. It is harder over there, as the range in rating of one's opponent is not someting I can select, at least not in a rated game. I've played against guys as much as 500 points over my rating. So for chess.com Live Chess and especially ICC chess, I'm looking into 1.d4 systems.
It's true if you play in the pools, but you can send an open seek - ie. seek 20 10 1200-1400 r or anything you want.
They are really booked up at ICC. Endgames are the key over there.
Interesting. Why are the 1000 rated players so much stronger over at ICC? Here, I can do o.k. in Live Chess against a 1000 rated player. Over there I get crushed.
Is it because one must pay to play internet chess at ICC? Are they more serious about chess? I just had to fork over another 3 month membership fee for playing privileges. My win/loss stats are beyond terrible over there.
Why do I pay for this membership? Mostly because I like to listen to Dan Heisman explain things to me in his Improve Your Chess video lectures. The most recent one is titled "Another Instructive Endgame". :)
So, these ICC players know the endgame? Yep. Even when there was very little material on the board in a few of my games, those players knew how to promote a pawn!
Ratings don't mean the same thing across the board. A 1000-rated OTB player > 1000-rated ICC player > 1000-rated FICS player > 1000-rated chess.com player.
That doesn't mean anything except that the playing pools are different. Ratings may all use about the same scale, but they aren't meant to be the same across all playforms.
A good rule of thumb for players well below the top amateur classes (not even getting into expert and above):
When we think they lost because we didn't know the opening, we probably lost because of basic tactics.
When we think we lost because we got outplayed positionally, we probably lost because of basic tactics.
When we think we lost because we goofed up the endgame, we probably lost because of basic tactics.
i think that ironically chess.com has worse 1000players because the site is more well done and also is free.i have talked with countless players who got interested in chess because of chess.com while if you are new to chess you probably dont feel like paying alot of money for ICC when its a site here to that is free where you can test it out.
i guess my point is, a 1000 player here have achieved the rating against a pool of players new to the game while a 1000 player at ICC has achieved the rating against a pool of regular clubplayers and such.
Thanks to everyone for the excellent replies regarding play over at ICC. I've been very busy these past few days with band concerts and, have not had a chance to read them until this morning.
I've placed seeks over at ICC for 900-1200, but see less than 10 people in that range. I actually need to sit and wait for a turn to play.
The pool of players between 900-1200 at chess.com is far greater. I can always get a game in right away.
ICC must be full of serious club players.
ICC has a chess league designed for slow chess.
Although this forum and topic is very old, I found it after searching for the 1.d4 Repertoire DVD offer from ChessBase. Great topic and comments.
We are ready to launch this concept. Check in ! https://www.chess.com/club/londoneers
Yes, this is a series of his, GrandMaster Repertoire. I was surprised to see this was a 2010 posting of a book I thought was his newest. I did not hear this was an updated edition.
Much of the repertoire like the London System has changed a lot in the last 10 years.
I hear that Nigel Davies has recommended tons of different openings. That is how he makes his money, with opening manuals. Maybe another author would be preferable.
Don't they all?
+1 on the Opening Repertoire for White by Keene. You might at as well learn a system you can add to and keep some of what you want to end up playing.
As a former player of the Trompowsky, Torre, London, and Colle, at various times in my chess activities. Those ...Qb6 lines in the 3 sure put a damper on the fun! And black eventually figures out how to play a ...e5 line in the Colle!
My favorite off-beat line would be the Nimzo-Larsen!
As a former player of the Trompowsky, Torre, London, and Colle, at various times in my chess activities. Those ...Qb6 lines in the 3 sure put a damper on the fun! And black eventually figures out how to play a ...e5 line in the Colle!
I'll try to remember that Qb6 move when I play Black against the d4 systems.
As a former player of the Trompowsky, Torre, London, and Colle, at various times in my chess activities. Those ...Qb6 lines in the 3 sure put a damper on the fun! And black eventually figures out how to play a ...e5 line in the Colle!
I'll try to remember that Qb6 move when I play Black against the d4 systems.
As far as I understand it doesn't work if white can respond with Qb3 without making concessions (in some London lines Qb3 is met with c4, when Qc2 is followed by Bf5; white players tend to avoid these lines though)
If someone is rated U1600 on ICC, they are still weak on tactics and you can exploit that. Take a break and watch some of the games played between 15xx players there. You'll start seeing that they make pretty big mistakes too.
"pretty big mistakes" ? Why do I sense that somebody's been watching my games? lol Seriously though, I'm often astonished that players around this bracket (1500ish on ICC) seem to miss mates as often as they do. I watch a lot of blitz games over there and find mates during games that 1800+ players are missing, and believe me when I say, I'm terrible at blitz. Not sure why many are missing simple mate patterns like that. Maybe they're playing TOO much blitz or something?