I agree he didn't seem to be 2300, and he can't beat NM Reb, but the guy didn't cheat, and his comments on the forums were chess related, usually reasonable and not inflammatory (as far as I could see. Correct me if I'm wrong here). He just gave a wrong impression of himself (an important point is that I think he genuinely believed in that impression), he was corrected and then got angry about it on this thread.
Maybe we should put a rest to this subject.
Agree!
I agree he didn't seem to be 2300, and he can't beat NM Reb, but the guy didn't cheat, and his comments on the forums were chess related, usually reasonable and not inflammatory (as far as I could see. Correct me if I'm wrong here). He just gave a wrong impression of himself (an important point is that I think he genuinely believed in that impression), he was corrected and then got angry about it on this thread.
Maybe we should put a rest to this subject.
It's over. Both he and NM Reb moved on long ago. Too bad. It was a lovely chess story in the making...
He made his claim that everyone thought was ridiculous. People called him out, using his past performances against him. Yet he boldly responded by directly challenging NM Reb (post 28), "willing to put money on it", willing to back up his claims that everyone else thought were outlandish. NM Reb responded immediately and emphatically (post 29). Then...nothing. It's over before anything happens, the challenger and challengee gone like thieves in the night. We had some nice trash-talk-hype as in UItimate Fighting but no follow-up, where after the knockout everyone shakes hands and puts it behind them. It seemed like they were both ready and willing to battle with patzers willing to watch.
Fiveofswords has given solid advice in some of my threads, and I never got the impression that he thinks of himself as a chess demigod. Agree with philidor_position...there were no bad guys in this incompleted storyline, which makes it that much more interesting.
P.S. - if the 5o vs. Reb match does take place, my money's on Reb.
I think everyone's money is on Reb, where will the takers come from? 
Schachgeek,
Are there any statistics on rated versus unrated players? Doesn't the rated
player win at least 90% of the time?
I agree he didn't seem to be 2300, and he can't beat NM Reb, but the guy didn't cheat, and his comments on the forums were chess related, usually reasonable and not inflammatory (as far as I could see. Correct me if I'm wrong here). He just gave a wrong impression of himself (an important point is that I think he genuinely believed in that impression), he was corrected and then got angry about it on this thread.
Maybe we should put a rest to this subject.
It's over. Both he and NM Reb moved on long ago. Too bad. It was a lovely chess story in the making...
He made his claim that everyone thought was ridiculous. People called him out, using his past performances against him. Yet he boldly responded by directly challenging NM Reb (post 28), "willing to put money on it", willing to back up his claims that everyone else thought were outlandish. NM Reb responded immediately and emphatically (post 29). Then...nothing. It's over before anything happens, the challenger and challengee gone like thieves in the night. We had some nice trash-talk-hype as in UItimate Fighting but no follow-up, where after the knockout everyone shakes hands and puts it behind them. It seemed like they were both ready and willing to battle with patzers willing to watch.
Fiveofswords has given solid advice in some of my threads, and I never got the impression that he thinks of himself as a chess demigod. Agree with philidor_position...there were no bad guys in this incompleted storyline, which makes it that much more interesting.
Haha, nice analysis. You seem to know more about what's going on then the people involved (post 56).
Schachgeek,
Are there any statistics on rated versus unrated players? Doesn't the rated
player win at least 90% of the time?
Trick question.
People mistakenly equate unrated=chess beginner, but that's not necessarily the case.
Ratings are a measurement of your performance at other rated tournaments, but being unrated only proves that you haven't played other rated tournaments (or the events you've played have not been rated yet).
Unrated is just that, unrated.
Last summer for example I went to a tournament in Mexico where 1st place in the open was taken by an FM. Second place was a tie between a 1700 and an unrated. Third was tie between an FM and an unrated. Fourth was a tie between a 2100, 1400 and a 1000. Well, maybe some of these ratings may have been provisional but those unrateds? Clearly not beginners.
Didnt you say those " unrated " players had good uscf ratings but were just " unrated " in fide ?
When I returned to chess after a break the (then) BCF local grader simply gave me an estimated grading of 160 (1900-ish FIDE) with no games played. This grading was then used for all calculations the following year. An ad hoc decision that was easy to implement and saved a few red faces.
Nobody's analysis is irrefutable, not even Fiveofswords or Deep Rybka 4 (though I can't tell the difference).
Yeah that last bit is what I meant (that anyone 400 or so points above you can seem superhuman), because I can certainly tell the difference!
Yeah Elubas, I see what you mean. Unfortunately it seems to have the opposite effect with me...since I am too weak to evaluate advice from stronger players, I essentially ignore much of it and do what I want. Could that be why my rating is stuck where it is? Doubt it...probably just people using engines set at 1300 against me.
And thanks thejackbauer (post 62)...didn't think anyone read my longer posts, may have to watch what I say in the future or just press "submit" in these forums as fast as I do playing.
After palying a GM no-one makes fun of you if you lose, if you win you're a hero, plus you can learn many things. It's really better than playing a worse opponent. Never be deafeted before the real battle.
If the "2300 in your mind" title is open I'm going to claim it.
Ok, here's how ya plays chess, boys. Ya see first you gotta check your six....
USCF has awarded me the coveted "Life 2300-in-my-mind" title for playing over 300 games while rated over 2300 in my mind.
Ironically, the poll today is "What rating improvement is hardest to make... 1200-1400? 1800-2000?" etc. I am quite sure that the hardest rating adjustment of all is the one from a Master-in-My-Mind back down to reality: Patzer-on-the-Board.
He was good, but he always seemed to eager to post and acted as a know it all all the time, and of course he has made claims like these sometimes.
But why do you think that he left? He probably just left this topic. You have nothing to apologize for.
I imagine he left out of embarassment.
I felt it was disrespectful to the game and to the genuine titled players (and any of those who have earned their rating for that matter) to claim such a high rating while not having proved it otb.
It's not easy to get that good and it's offensive to have it devalued on some selfish whim.
I watched the recent WC match between Vishy and Topa. They both played loads of moves I never even would have considered or thought were inferior. Based on that fact I'm gonna say I'm probably rated somewhere around 3100.
(for the humor impaired, I'm trying without much success to be funny).