800 is statistically average.
I feel like im pretty good at chess, but my rating is 400
Sort:
xor_eax_eax05 wrote:
Ilikeduckdude wrote:
xor_eax_eax05 wrote:
RespektMyAuthoritah wrote:
xor_eax_eax05 wrote:
RespektMyAuthoritah wrote:
NEETHUDAS123 wrote:
RespektMyAuthoritah wrote:
NEETHUDAS123 wrote:
BoredErica wrote:
JamesColeman wrote:
This is in no way meant to sound harsh but if you’re 400 - pretty much everything you could possibly be doing wrong, you are doing.
But the biggest factor is certainly: hanging pieces, missing basic threats/mates, failing to take free pieces and basically everything you can think of to do with board vision.
If you can improve board awareness / safety / threats / vision - even just a little bit, you’ll definitely see gains in your rating.
Completely agree. 400s are missing all kinds of things all the time. Some players exhibit dunning kruger and do not appreciate the large skill gaps between different groups of players.
I have had friends rated ~200, 350, 600, 800 play together and I can see significant differences in their play. If the OP is interested in improvement, they should link games and have people provide feedback.
Is this suppost to be some prank? I was playing games consistently with accuracies of 60-70 % when I was 200. Nowadays My usual accuracy is 75 to 80. I do not agree with this at all
Accuracies are not the same across all elo ratings. Most of your games are against 500s. It's very easy to have high scores against them. Your usual accuracy of 75 would drop be more like 20 if you regularly played stronger players. So @BoredErica is completely right. Be humble and listen to stronger players than you. Thinking that you know more than a titled player when you're 600 is insane
When in existence was I saying I know more than a titled player? Also I am pretty sure that stockfish evaluations dont change when the rating changes. I am really getting confused on what is going on over here on this forum.
BoredErica replied to JamesColeman saying he agrees with what he said. Then you replied and said "I do not agree with this at all". That is you disagreeing with a titled player. You're 600 be humble and listen to players better than you.
Accuracy depends on what moves you're doing based on the position on the board. When you play a 500 their moves suck. Responding accurately to them is easy because they don't complicate a position the same way a 2400 does. That is why it is easy to get 70% accuracy against a 600. If you played a 2400 your accuracy would drop to 30
So what if he's a titled player? Saying you are doing everything wrong does not constitute a very good analysis. He's been very silent ever since I showed him some examples of games with really low average centipawn loss, which clearly contradicts his arguments.
Btw, centipawn loss is accrued by comparing your move to the engine's best move. Not by comparing it to your opponent's move. You could argue some positions are more positional and others are more tactical, therefore, it will be easier to match the best engine move more often, but that will not happen for every single move in a match since engines go on tangents and lines even SuperGMs can't find.
When a player in 3 digits or even in the lower 1000 elo ladder plays 25, 30 move matches with 30, 20 average centipawn loss, regardless of whether the match is highly positional or highly tactical, is a clear sign they are not "doing everything wrong".
That's also a sign the elo ladder on this site is completely broken.
In my experience I have only played against people who are that accurate at Daily chess and they are players close to 1900-2000 elo. In a time control where they can even go consult databases, etc. So it's incredibly upsetting to see players at 900 elo on this site playing with such accuracy.
And engines don't analyse a position differently based on the rating of the players. Mate in 1 is mate 1 for Carlsen and for a chess.com 400 elo player. Losing 100 centipawns in 1 move is evaluated exactly the same, whether you do it or Nakamura does it.
And please note Im using "centipawns", not the chess.com "CAPS SCORE" or accuracy, or whatever they call it. In chess the accuracy of a move against an engine is measured in centipawns.
There it is, a sub 1000 thinking he knows more about chess than a master. Dunning-Kruger in full effect
You just can't counter my arguments because you know they are true. Prove me wrong. Tell me centipawns to measure accuracy is a myth and that everyone uses chess.com CAPS. Prove the engine analysis a position differently based on elo of the players. Prove accuracy is not measured against the engine's best move rather than the other player's move.
You can't. So you immediately try to disregard it via elo. Hilarious. You also keep referring to that titled player when Im addressing YOU. Are you calling for help? Do you think "the master" is going to come back to the thread to defend you? "Help me, Master, I can't counter this 900 elo's arguments, help pls".
Embarrassing.
Also im 900 in 10+0 Rapid chess and faster time controls because I can't think beyond 2 moves in such a quick time control and i blunder like a moron. Im much much much better in slower time controls. You, on the other hand, are only 2000 when playing fast. When you have to slow down and think about your play, your brain just can't go very deep and gets stuck, so that's why you are 1300 in Daily.
bro really thinks hes a grandmaster lmao
lol you just tilted after losing like 2k rapid games and started playing daily so you can say you're a 1400 after analyzing a position for 3 hours more than your opponent because you have nothing better to do
You dont need to be a Grandmaster to analyse games with Stockfish. The fact that you are 1700 here and you believe that you have to be a Grandmaster to learn what centipawns are or how accuracy is measured, makes it even more hilarious. It's the most basic thing. You dont need to a titled streamer to learn how to analyse your games.
Also your maths are off. When I was playing 80 Daily games at once many years ago, had I taken "3 hours" to analyse each position before moving, how many days would you think it would take me to move in all 80? Impossible task.
You have no clue.
You think there can't be a difference of 800 points in different time controls? Let's look at your profile, shall we? 1700 in Rapid. What's your bullet rating? 761 ... Ah yeah, 900 elo point difference. So shut up.
It's amazing how this clown keeps talking dodoo at people who are better than he is. He's 1700 something you haven't been able to accomplish in 5000 games. 5000 for christ sake. Go study some chess and be quiet
B1ZMARK wrote:
800 is statistically average.
Maybe on chess.com it is, at a serious chess club it is more like 1500 to 1600.
Mar 25, 2023
0
#86
if someone is making an argument which goes wrong somewhere and you actually want to help them
explain where they are going wrong
the whole accuracy stuff is correct (from xor eax)
but erica and respekt are attacking that when they should atleast be attacking the "thus i am 1500" point
and personal attacks are just stupid
all of this can be generalised to any fight about any topic
so ratings shaming me would be logically useless
Mar 25, 2023
0
#87
RespektMyAuthoritah wrote:
xor_eax_eax05 wrote:
Ilikeduckdude wrote:
xor_eax_eax05 wrote:
RespektMyAuthoritah wrote:
xor_eax_eax05 wrote:
RespektMyAuthoritah wrote:
NEETHUDAS123 wrote:
RespektMyAuthoritah wrote:
NEETHUDAS123 wrote:
BoredErica wrote:
JamesColeman wrote:
This is in no way meant to sound harsh but if you’re 400 - pretty much everything you could possibly be doing wrong, you are doing.
But the biggest factor is certainly: hanging pieces, missing basic threats/mates, failing to take free pieces and basically everything you can think of to do with board vision.
If you can improve board awareness / safety / threats / vision - even just a little bit, you’ll definitely see gains in your rating.
Completely agree. 400s are missing all kinds of things all the time. Some players exhibit dunning kruger and do not appreciate the large skill gaps between different groups of players.
I have had friends rated ~200, 350, 600, 800 play together and I can see significant differences in their play. If the OP is interested in improvement, they should link games and have people provide feedback.
Is this suppost to be some prank? I was playing games consistently with accuracies of 60-70 % when I was 200. Nowadays My usual accuracy is 75 to 80. I do not agree with this at all
Accuracies are not the same across all elo ratings. Most of your games are against 500s. It's very easy to have high scores against them. Your usual accuracy of 75 would drop be more like 20 if you regularly played stronger players. So @BoredErica is completely right. Be humble and listen to stronger players than you. Thinking that you know more than a titled player when you're 600 is insane
When in existence was I saying I know more than a titled player? Also I am pretty sure that stockfish evaluations dont change when the rating changes. I am really getting confused on what is going on over here on this forum.
BoredErica replied to JamesColeman saying he agrees with what he said. Then you replied and said "I do not agree with this at all". That is you disagreeing with a titled player. You're 600 be humble and listen to players better than you.
Accuracy depends on what moves you're doing based on the position on the board. When you play a 500 their moves suck. Responding accurately to them is easy because they don't complicate a position the same way a 2400 does. That is why it is easy to get 70% accuracy against a 600. If you played a 2400 your accuracy would drop to 30
So what if he's a titled player? Saying you are doing everything wrong does not constitute a very good analysis. He's been very silent ever since I showed him some examples of games with really low average centipawn loss, which clearly contradicts his arguments.
Btw, centipawn loss is accrued by comparing your move to the engine's best move. Not by comparing it to your opponent's move. You could argue some positions are more positional and others are more tactical, therefore, it will be easier to match the best engine move more often, but that will not happen for every single move in a match since engines go on tangents and lines even SuperGMs can't find.
When a player in 3 digits or even in the lower 1000 elo ladder plays 25, 30 move matches with 30, 20 average centipawn loss, regardless of whether the match is highly positional or highly tactical, is a clear sign they are not "doing everything wrong".
That's also a sign the elo ladder on this site is completely broken.
In my experience I have only played against people who are that accurate at Daily chess and they are players close to 1900-2000 elo. In a time control where they can even go consult databases, etc. So it's incredibly upsetting to see players at 900 elo on this site playing with such accuracy.
And engines don't analyse a position differently based on the rating of the players. Mate in 1 is mate 1 for Carlsen and for a chess.com 400 elo player. Losing 100 centipawns in 1 move is evaluated exactly the same, whether you do it or Nakamura does it.
And please note Im using "centipawns", not the chess.com "CAPS SCORE" or accuracy, or whatever they call it. In chess the accuracy of a move against an engine is measured in centipawns.
There it is, a sub 1000 thinking he knows more about chess than a master. Dunning-Kruger in full effect
You just can't counter my arguments because you know they are true. Prove me wrong. Tell me centipawns to measure accuracy is a myth and that everyone uses chess.com CAPS. Prove the engine analysis a position differently based on elo of the players. Prove accuracy is not measured against the engine's best move rather than the other player's move.
You can't. So you immediately try to disregard it via elo. Hilarious. You also keep referring to that titled player when Im addressing YOU. Are you calling for help? Do you think "the master" is going to come back to the thread to defend you? "Help me, Master, I can't counter this 900 elo's arguments, help pls".
Embarrassing.
Also im 900 in 10+0 Rapid chess and faster time controls because I can't think beyond 2 moves in such a quick time control and i blunder like a moron. Im much much much better in slower time controls. You, on the other hand, are only 2000 when playing fast. When you have to slow down and think about your play, your brain just can't go very deep and gets stuck, so that's why you are 1300 in Daily.
bro really thinks hes a grandmaster lmao
lol you just tilted after losing like 2k rapid games and started playing daily so you can say you're a 1400 after analyzing a position for 3 hours more than your opponent because you have nothing better to do
You dont need to be a Grandmaster to analyse games with Stockfish. The fact that you are 1700 here and you believe that you have to be a Grandmaster to learn what centipawns are or how accuracy is measured, makes it even more hilarious. It's the most basic thing. You dont need to a titled streamer to learn how to analyse your games.
Also your maths are off. When I was playing 80 Daily games at once many years ago, had I taken "3 hours" to analyse each position before moving, how many days would you think it would take me to move in all 80? Impossible task.
You have no clue.
You think there can't be a difference of 800 points in different time controls? Let's look at your profile, shall we? 1700 in Rapid. What's your bullet rating? 761 ... Ah yeah, 900 elo point difference. So shut up.
It's amazing how this clown keeps talking dodoo at people who are better than he is. He's 1700 something you haven't been able to accomplish in 5000 games. 5000 for christ sake. Go study some chess and be quiet
I think you are the one who needs to shut up and be quiet. You are 1300 in long time controls. Even now, my slow time control is almost 200 points higher than yours, and it will go up obviously.
Chess is a game of patience and deep thinking. All best players in history are it and are remembered as such, not because they were amazing at the blunderfiesta of bullet or blitz, but because they were it at classical time controls. Where the best chess is being played by your opponent. Kasparov, Magnus, Fischer, Karpov, etc., even the current gen of super gms, such as Fabiano. Nepo, So, etc., are regarded as the greatest players because of their classical strength. Not their bullet or blitz strength.
Only the Naka generation of twitch acolytes believe those time controls to be a measure, because that's what he and the other streamers sell, because he can't obviously stream classical or stream advanced >2200 tactical/positional advise as he would lose his audience and his $$$$
So it's you who should sit down and be quiet.
Mar 25, 2023
0
#88
BoredErica wrote:
RespektMyAuthoritah wrote:
xor_eax_eax05 wrote:
RespektMyAuthoritah wrote:
xor_eax_eax05 wrote:
RespektMyAuthoritah wrote:
NEETHUDAS123 wrote:
RespektMyAuthoritah wrote:
NEETHUDAS123 wrote:
BoredErica wrote:
JamesColeman wrote:
This is in no way meant to sound harsh but if you’re 400 - pretty much everything you could possibly be doing wrong, you are doing.
But the biggest factor is certainly: hanging pieces, missing basic threats/mates, failing to take free pieces and basically everything you can think of to do with board vision.
If you can improve board awareness / safety / threats / vision - even just a little bit, you’ll definitely see gains in your rating.
Completely agree. 400s are missing all kinds of things all the time. Some players exhibit dunning kruger and do not appreciate the large skill gaps between different groups of players.
I have had friends rated ~200, 350, 600, 800 play together and I can see significant differences in their play. If the OP is interested in improvement, they should link games and have people provide feedback.
Is this suppost to be some prank? I was playing games consistently with accuracies of 60-70 % when I was 200. Nowadays My usual accuracy is 75 to 80. I do not agree with this at all
Accuracies are not the same across all elo ratings. Most of your games are against 500s. It's very easy to have high scores against them. Your usual accuracy of 75 would drop be more like 20 if you regularly played stronger players. So @BoredErica is completely right. Be humble and listen to stronger players than you. Thinking that you know more than a titled player when you're 600 is insane
When in existence was I saying I know more than a titled player? Also I am pretty sure that stockfish evaluations dont change when the rating changes. I am really getting confused on what is going on over here on this forum.
BoredErica replied to JamesColeman saying he agrees with what he said. Then you replied and said "I do not agree with this at all". That is you disagreeing with a titled player. You're 600 be humble and listen to players better than you.
Accuracy depends on what moves you're doing based on the position on the board. When you play a 500 their moves suck. Responding accurately to them is easy because they don't complicate a position the same way a 2400 does. That is why it is easy to get 70% accuracy against a 600. If you played a 2400 your accuracy would drop to 30
So what if he's a titled player? Saying you are doing everything wrong does not constitute a very good analysis. He's been very silent ever since I showed him some examples of games with really low average centipawn loss, which clearly contradicts his arguments.
Btw, centipawn loss is accrued by comparing your move to the engine's best move. Not by comparing it to your opponent's move. You could argue some positions are more positional and others are more tactical, therefore, it will be easier to match the best engine move more often, but that will not happen for every single move in a match since engines go on tangents and lines even SuperGMs can't find.
When a player in 3 digits or even in the lower 1000 elo ladder plays 25, 30 move matches with 30, 20 average centipawn loss, regardless of whether the match is highly positional or highly tactical, is a clear sign they are not "doing everything wrong".
That's also a sign the elo ladder on this site is completely broken.
In my experience I have only played against people who are that accurate at Daily chess and they are players close to 1900-2000 elo. In a time control where they can even go consult databases, etc. So it's incredibly upsetting to see players at 900 elo on this site playing with such accuracy.
And engines don't analyse a position differently based on the rating of the players. Mate in 1 is mate 1 for Carlsen and for a chess.com 400 elo player. Losing 100 centipawns in 1 move is evaluated exactly the same, whether you do it or Nakamura does it.
And please note Im using "centipawns", not the chess.com "CAPS SCORE" or accuracy, or whatever they call it. In chess the accuracy of a move against an engine is measured in centipawns.
There it is, a sub 1000 thinking he knows more about chess than a master. Dunning-Kruger in full effect
You just can't counter my arguments because you know they are true. Prove me wrong. Tell me centipawns to measure accuracy is a myth and that everyone uses chess.com CAPS. Prove the engine analysis a position differently based on elo of the players. Prove accuracy is not measured against the engine's best move rather than the other player's move.
You can't. So you immediately try to disregard it via elo. Hilarious. You also keep referring to that titled player when Im addressing YOU. Are you calling for help? Do you think "the master" is going to come back to the thread to defend you? "Help me, Master, I can't counter this 900 elo's arguments, help pls".
Embarrassing.
Also im 900 in 10+0 Rapid chess and faster time controls because I can't think beyond 2 moves in such a quick time control and i blunder like a moron. Im much much much better in slower time controls. You, on the other hand, are only 2000 when playing fast. When you have to slow down and think about your play, your brain just can't go very deep and gets stuck, so that's why you are 1300 in Daily.
I don't have the time nor the inclination to waste my time with you. I will tell you one thing your excuses as to why you suck at chess are pretty pathetic. You can't accept the fact that you suck so you're trying to bring up stupid excuses to justify how bad you are at this game. The fact that you claim 15|10 is not enough time to think beyond 2 moves says everything about your skill
We need to give you a medal for sticking to it in the face of all the super low rated players coping about how they hang with 1500s or are secretly 1700 in disguise. How people manage to delude themselves regarding their playing strength in a skill based game with no RNG with a rated right next their username is really something. So it takes a really special kind of person to still be this confused.
I said 1700-1800, not 1500. That's too low. Anyway, you talk as if being 1700 strength was an amazing feat. Anything under 2000 elo is bad.
A long time ago I provided examples of matches I had played in long daily time controls on another site, at the 1750-1800 level, to some ppl on these forums, and everyone seemed to agree the play was not a typical 1000 elo level strength play, so their conclusion was ...
... I was stealing games from someone else.
Chess community is quite unintelligent, really.
xor_eax_eax05 wrote:
RespektMyAuthoritah wrote:
xor_eax_eax05 wrote:
Ilikeduckdude wrote:
xor_eax_eax05 wrote:
RespektMyAuthoritah wrote:
xor_eax_eax05 wrote:
RespektMyAuthoritah wrote:
NEETHUDAS123 wrote:
RespektMyAuthoritah wrote:
NEETHUDAS123 wrote:
BoredErica wrote:
JamesColeman wrote:
This is in no way meant to sound harsh but if you’re 400 - pretty much everything you could possibly be doing wrong, you are doing.
But the biggest factor is certainly: hanging pieces, missing basic threats/mates, failing to take free pieces and basically everything you can think of to do with board vision.
If you can improve board awareness / safety / threats / vision - even just a little bit, you’ll definitely see gains in your rating.
Completely agree. 400s are missing all kinds of things all the time. Some players exhibit dunning kruger and do not appreciate the large skill gaps between different groups of players.
I have had friends rated ~200, 350, 600, 800 play together and I can see significant differences in their play. If the OP is interested in improvement, they should link games and have people provide feedback.
Is this suppost to be some prank? I was playing games consistently with accuracies of 60-70 % when I was 200. Nowadays My usual accuracy is 75 to 80. I do not agree with this at all
Accuracies are not the same across all elo ratings. Most of your games are against 500s. It's very easy to have high scores against them. Your usual accuracy of 75 would drop be more like 20 if you regularly played stronger players. So @BoredErica is completely right. Be humble and listen to stronger players than you. Thinking that you know more than a titled player when you're 600 is insane
When in existence was I saying I know more than a titled player? Also I am pretty sure that stockfish evaluations dont change when the rating changes. I am really getting confused on what is going on over here on this forum.
BoredErica replied to JamesColeman saying he agrees with what he said. Then you replied and said "I do not agree with this at all". That is you disagreeing with a titled player. You're 600 be humble and listen to players better than you.
Accuracy depends on what moves you're doing based on the position on the board. When you play a 500 their moves suck. Responding accurately to them is easy because they don't complicate a position the same way a 2400 does. That is why it is easy to get 70% accuracy against a 600. If you played a 2400 your accuracy would drop to 30
So what if he's a titled player? Saying you are doing everything wrong does not constitute a very good analysis. He's been very silent ever since I showed him some examples of games with really low average centipawn loss, which clearly contradicts his arguments.
Btw, centipawn loss is accrued by comparing your move to the engine's best move. Not by comparing it to your opponent's move. You could argue some positions are more positional and others are more tactical, therefore, it will be easier to match the best engine move more often, but that will not happen for every single move in a match since engines go on tangents and lines even SuperGMs can't find.
When a player in 3 digits or even in the lower 1000 elo ladder plays 25, 30 move matches with 30, 20 average centipawn loss, regardless of whether the match is highly positional or highly tactical, is a clear sign they are not "doing everything wrong".
That's also a sign the elo ladder on this site is completely broken.
In my experience I have only played against people who are that accurate at Daily chess and they are players close to 1900-2000 elo. In a time control where they can even go consult databases, etc. So it's incredibly upsetting to see players at 900 elo on this site playing with such accuracy.
And engines don't analyse a position differently based on the rating of the players. Mate in 1 is mate 1 for Carlsen and for a chess.com 400 elo player. Losing 100 centipawns in 1 move is evaluated exactly the same, whether you do it or Nakamura does it.
And please note Im using "centipawns", not the chess.com "CAPS SCORE" or accuracy, or whatever they call it. In chess the accuracy of a move against an engine is measured in centipawns.
There it is, a sub 1000 thinking he knows more about chess than a master. Dunning-Kruger in full effect
You just can't counter my arguments because you know they are true. Prove me wrong. Tell me centipawns to measure accuracy is a myth and that everyone uses chess.com CAPS. Prove the engine analysis a position differently based on elo of the players. Prove accuracy is not measured against the engine's best move rather than the other player's move.
You can't. So you immediately try to disregard it via elo. Hilarious. You also keep referring to that titled player when Im addressing YOU. Are you calling for help? Do you think "the master" is going to come back to the thread to defend you? "Help me, Master, I can't counter this 900 elo's arguments, help pls".
Embarrassing.
Also im 900 in 10+0 Rapid chess and faster time controls because I can't think beyond 2 moves in such a quick time control and i blunder like a moron. Im much much much better in slower time controls. You, on the other hand, are only 2000 when playing fast. When you have to slow down and think about your play, your brain just can't go very deep and gets stuck, so that's why you are 1300 in Daily.
bro really thinks hes a grandmaster lmao
lol you just tilted after losing like 2k rapid games and started playing daily so you can say you're a 1400 after analyzing a position for 3 hours more than your opponent because you have nothing better to do
You dont need to be a Grandmaster to analyse games with Stockfish. The fact that you are 1700 here and you believe that you have to be a Grandmaster to learn what centipawns are or how accuracy is measured, makes it even more hilarious. It's the most basic thing. You dont need to a titled streamer to learn how to analyse your games.
Also your maths are off. When I was playing 80 Daily games at once many years ago, had I taken "3 hours" to analyse each position before moving, how many days would you think it would take me to move in all 80? Impossible task.
You have no clue.
You think there can't be a difference of 800 points in different time controls? Let's look at your profile, shall we? 1700 in Rapid. What's your bullet rating? 761 ... Ah yeah, 900 elo point difference. So shut up.
It's amazing how this clown keeps talking dodoo at people who are better than he is. He's 1700 something you haven't been able to accomplish in 5000 games. 5000 for christ sake. Go study some chess and be quiet
I think you are the one who needs to shut up and be quiet. You are 1300 in long time controls. Even now, my slow time control is almost 200 points higher than yours, and it will go up obviously.
Chess is a game of patience and deep thinking. All best players in history are it and are remembered as such, not because they were amazing at the blunderfiesta of bullet or blitz, but because they were it at classical time controls. Where the best chess is being played by your opponent. Kasparov, Magnus, Fischer, Karpov, etc., even the current gen of super gms, such as Fabiano. Nepo, So, etc., are regarded as the greatest players because of their classical strength. Not their bullet or blitz strength.
Only the Naka generation of twitch acolytes believe those time controls to be a measure, because that's what he and the other streamers sell, because he can't obviously stream classical or stream advanced >2200 tactical/positional advise as he would lose his audience and his $$$$
So it's you who should sit down and be quiet.
Classical, rapid and blitz are the time controls that matter most in that order. There is a world championship for each one and Magnus is celebrated for winning all three commonly refered as the triple crown that's because people care about it. No one plays the "daily world championship" I don't even know if such a thing even exist. That format has no significance in chess. You keep trying to pair my daily rating with yours to try and win this argument when I don't even play daily and even though I don't play it the difference is 100pts. Yet the difference between your rapid and mine is ONE THOUSAND. So shut up. You also keep trying to pretend like rapid doesn't exist and only mention blitz and bullet. Rapid includes 30min that's long time control and yet in that format you cannot even break past 1000 after 5000 games
Mar 25, 2023
0
#90
I agree, you two should stop hijacking the thread with your testosterone contest and focus on helping the OP...
xor_eax_eax05 wrote:
BoredErica wrote:
RespektMyAuthoritah wrote:
xor_eax_eax05 wrote:
RespektMyAuthoritah wrote:
xor_eax_eax05 wrote:
RespektMyAuthoritah wrote:
NEETHUDAS123 wrote:
RespektMyAuthoritah wrote:
NEETHUDAS123 wrote:
BoredErica wrote:
JamesColeman wrote:
This is in no way meant to sound harsh but if you’re 400 - pretty much everything you could possibly be doing wrong, you are doing.
But the biggest factor is certainly: hanging pieces, missing basic threats/mates, failing to take free pieces and basically everything you can think of to do with board vision.
If you can improve board awareness / safety / threats / vision - even just a little bit, you’ll definitely see gains in your rating.
Completely agree. 400s are missing all kinds of things all the time. Some players exhibit dunning kruger and do not appreciate the large skill gaps between different groups of players.
I have had friends rated ~200, 350, 600, 800 play together and I can see significant differences in their play. If the OP is interested in improvement, they should link games and have people provide feedback.
Is this suppost to be some prank? I was playing games consistently with accuracies of 60-70 % when I was 200. Nowadays My usual accuracy is 75 to 80. I do not agree with this at all
Accuracies are not the same across all elo ratings. Most of your games are against 500s. It's very easy to have high scores against them. Your usual accuracy of 75 would drop be more like 20 if you regularly played stronger players. So @BoredErica is completely right. Be humble and listen to stronger players than you. Thinking that you know more than a titled player when you're 600 is insane
When in existence was I saying I know more than a titled player? Also I am pretty sure that stockfish evaluations dont change when the rating changes. I am really getting confused on what is going on over here on this forum.
BoredErica replied to JamesColeman saying he agrees with what he said. Then you replied and said "I do not agree with this at all". That is you disagreeing with a titled player. You're 600 be humble and listen to players better than you.
Accuracy depends on what moves you're doing based on the position on the board. When you play a 500 their moves suck. Responding accurately to them is easy because they don't complicate a position the same way a 2400 does. That is why it is easy to get 70% accuracy against a 600. If you played a 2400 your accuracy would drop to 30
So what if he's a titled player? Saying you are doing everything wrong does not constitute a very good analysis. He's been very silent ever since I showed him some examples of games with really low average centipawn loss, which clearly contradicts his arguments.
Btw, centipawn loss is accrued by comparing your move to the engine's best move. Not by comparing it to your opponent's move. You could argue some positions are more positional and others are more tactical, therefore, it will be easier to match the best engine move more often, but that will not happen for every single move in a match since engines go on tangents and lines even SuperGMs can't find.
When a player in 3 digits or even in the lower 1000 elo ladder plays 25, 30 move matches with 30, 20 average centipawn loss, regardless of whether the match is highly positional or highly tactical, is a clear sign they are not "doing everything wrong".
That's also a sign the elo ladder on this site is completely broken.
In my experience I have only played against people who are that accurate at Daily chess and they are players close to 1900-2000 elo. In a time control where they can even go consult databases, etc. So it's incredibly upsetting to see players at 900 elo on this site playing with such accuracy.
And engines don't analyse a position differently based on the rating of the players. Mate in 1 is mate 1 for Carlsen and for a chess.com 400 elo player. Losing 100 centipawns in 1 move is evaluated exactly the same, whether you do it or Nakamura does it.
And please note Im using "centipawns", not the chess.com "CAPS SCORE" or accuracy, or whatever they call it. In chess the accuracy of a move against an engine is measured in centipawns.
There it is, a sub 1000 thinking he knows more about chess than a master. Dunning-Kruger in full effect
You just can't counter my arguments because you know they are true. Prove me wrong. Tell me centipawns to measure accuracy is a myth and that everyone uses chess.com CAPS. Prove the engine analysis a position differently based on elo of the players. Prove accuracy is not measured against the engine's best move rather than the other player's move.
You can't. So you immediately try to disregard it via elo. Hilarious. You also keep referring to that titled player when Im addressing YOU. Are you calling for help? Do you think "the master" is going to come back to the thread to defend you? "Help me, Master, I can't counter this 900 elo's arguments, help pls".
Embarrassing.
Also im 900 in 10+0 Rapid chess and faster time controls because I can't think beyond 2 moves in such a quick time control and i blunder like a moron. Im much much much better in slower time controls. You, on the other hand, are only 2000 when playing fast. When you have to slow down and think about your play, your brain just can't go very deep and gets stuck, so that's why you are 1300 in Daily.
I don't have the time nor the inclination to waste my time with you. I will tell you one thing your excuses as to why you suck at chess are pretty pathetic. You can't accept the fact that you suck so you're trying to bring up stupid excuses to justify how bad you are at this game. The fact that you claim 15|10 is not enough time to think beyond 2 moves says everything about your skill
We need to give you a medal for sticking to it in the face of all the super low rated players coping about how they hang with 1500s or are secretly 1700 in disguise. How people manage to delude themselves regarding their playing strength in a skill based game with no RNG with a rated right next their username is really something. So it takes a really special kind of person to still be this confused.
I said 1700-1800, not 1500. That's too low. Anyway, you talk as if being 1700 strength was an amazing feat. Anything under 2000 elo is bad.
A long time ago I provided examples of matches I had played in long daily time controls on another site, at the 1750-1800 level, to some ppl on these forums, and everyone seemed to agree the play was not a typical 1000 elo level strength play, so their conclusion was ...
... I was stealing games from someone else.
Chess community is quite unintelligent, really.
And here is another example of you not facing reality. Here is you coming up with more fantasies as to why your rating is lower than what you want it to be. But but 30min rapid is speed chess I don't have time to think I'm not really 1000. But but my daily is stronger really it's just on another site I swear. Pathetic.
Ilampozhil25 wrote:
if someone is making an argument which goes wrong somewhere and you actually want to help them
explain where they are going wrong
the whole accuracy stuff is correct (from xor eax)
but erica and respekt are attacking that when they should atleast be attacking the "thus i am 1500" point
and personal attacks are just stupid
all of this can be generalised to any fight about any topic
so ratings shaming me would be logically useless
Na don't try to change history. He was the one who addressed me I wasn't even talking to him and he was the one that started with the personal attacks. But yea you're right this argument is stupid. He just got me mad with his dumb comments
Mar 25, 2023
0
#93
EscherehcsE wrote:
I agree, you two should stop hijacking the thread with your testosterone contest and focus on helping the OP...
But I was on topic on my first two replies. #9 and #11. These losers who because they are rated 2000 strong at chess because they play "let's flag people in speed chess" just went to personally attack me.
This pitiful 1300 elo at slow chess player is trying to brag about being better than me because he's 2000 at bullet, hilarious.
Mar 25, 2023
0
#94
Well, I'm just concerned that we might have already lost the OP. I haven't seen him reply in a while, and he may have given up on the thread.
Mar 25, 2023
0
#95
RespektMyAuthoritah wrote:
xor_eax_eax05 wrote:
RespektMyAuthoritah wrote:
xor_eax_eax05 wrote:
Ilikeduckdude wrote:
xor_eax_eax05 wrote:
RespektMyAuthoritah wrote:
xor_eax_eax05 wrote:
RespektMyAuthoritah wrote:
NEETHUDAS123 wrote:
RespektMyAuthoritah wrote:
NEETHUDAS123 wrote:
BoredErica wrote:
JamesColeman wrote:
This is in no way meant to sound harsh but if you’re 400 - pretty much everything you could possibly be doing wrong, you are doing.
But the biggest factor is certainly: hanging pieces, missing basic threats/mates, failing to take free pieces and basically everything you can think of to do with board vision.
If you can improve board awareness / safety / threats / vision - even just a little bit, you’ll definitely see gains in your rating.
Completely agree. 400s are missing all kinds of things all the time. Some players exhibit dunning kruger and do not appreciate the large skill gaps between different groups of players.
I have had friends rated ~200, 350, 600, 800 play together and I can see significant differences in their play. If the OP is interested in improvement, they should link games and have people provide feedback.
Is this suppost to be some prank? I was playing games consistently with accuracies of 60-70 % when I was 200. Nowadays My usual accuracy is 75 to 80. I do not agree with this at all
Accuracies are not the same across all elo ratings. Most of your games are against 500s. It's very easy to have high scores against them. Your usual accuracy of 75 would drop be more like 20 if you regularly played stronger players. So @BoredErica is completely right. Be humble and listen to stronger players than you. Thinking that you know more than a titled player when you're 600 is insane
When in existence was I saying I know more than a titled player? Also I am pretty sure that stockfish evaluations dont change when the rating changes. I am really getting confused on what is going on over here on this forum.
BoredErica replied to JamesColeman saying he agrees with what he said. Then you replied and said "I do not agree with this at all". That is you disagreeing with a titled player. You're 600 be humble and listen to players better than you.
Accuracy depends on what moves you're doing based on the position on the board. When you play a 500 their moves suck. Responding accurately to them is easy because they don't complicate a position the same way a 2400 does. That is why it is easy to get 70% accuracy against a 600. If you played a 2400 your accuracy would drop to 30
So what if he's a titled player? Saying you are doing everything wrong does not constitute a very good analysis. He's been very silent ever since I showed him some examples of games with really low average centipawn loss, which clearly contradicts his arguments.
Btw, centipawn loss is accrued by comparing your move to the engine's best move. Not by comparing it to your opponent's move. You could argue some positions are more positional and others are more tactical, therefore, it will be easier to match the best engine move more often, but that will not happen for every single move in a match since engines go on tangents and lines even SuperGMs can't find.
When a player in 3 digits or even in the lower 1000 elo ladder plays 25, 30 move matches with 30, 20 average centipawn loss, regardless of whether the match is highly positional or highly tactical, is a clear sign they are not "doing everything wrong".
That's also a sign the elo ladder on this site is completely broken.
In my experience I have only played against people who are that accurate at Daily chess and they are players close to 1900-2000 elo. In a time control where they can even go consult databases, etc. So it's incredibly upsetting to see players at 900 elo on this site playing with such accuracy.
And engines don't analyse a position differently based on the rating of the players. Mate in 1 is mate 1 for Carlsen and for a chess.com 400 elo player. Losing 100 centipawns in 1 move is evaluated exactly the same, whether you do it or Nakamura does it.
And please note Im using "centipawns", not the chess.com "CAPS SCORE" or accuracy, or whatever they call it. In chess the accuracy of a move against an engine is measured in centipawns.
There it is, a sub 1000 thinking he knows more about chess than a master. Dunning-Kruger in full effect
You just can't counter my arguments because you know they are true. Prove me wrong. Tell me centipawns to measure accuracy is a myth and that everyone uses chess.com CAPS. Prove the engine analysis a position differently based on elo of the players. Prove accuracy is not measured against the engine's best move rather than the other player's move.
You can't. So you immediately try to disregard it via elo. Hilarious. You also keep referring to that titled player when Im addressing YOU. Are you calling for help? Do you think "the master" is going to come back to the thread to defend you? "Help me, Master, I can't counter this 900 elo's arguments, help pls".
Embarrassing.
Also im 900 in 10+0 Rapid chess and faster time controls because I can't think beyond 2 moves in such a quick time control and i blunder like a moron. Im much much much better in slower time controls. You, on the other hand, are only 2000 when playing fast. When you have to slow down and think about your play, your brain just can't go very deep and gets stuck, so that's why you are 1300 in Daily.
bro really thinks hes a grandmaster lmao
lol you just tilted after losing like 2k rapid games and started playing daily so you can say you're a 1400 after analyzing a position for 3 hours more than your opponent because you have nothing better to do
You dont need to be a Grandmaster to analyse games with Stockfish. The fact that you are 1700 here and you believe that you have to be a Grandmaster to learn what centipawns are or how accuracy is measured, makes it even more hilarious. It's the most basic thing. You dont need to a titled streamer to learn how to analyse your games.
Also your maths are off. When I was playing 80 Daily games at once many years ago, had I taken "3 hours" to analyse each position before moving, how many days would you think it would take me to move in all 80? Impossible task.
You have no clue.
You think there can't be a difference of 800 points in different time controls? Let's look at your profile, shall we? 1700 in Rapid. What's your bullet rating? 761 ... Ah yeah, 900 elo point difference. So shut up.
It's amazing how this clown keeps talking dodoo at people who are better than he is. He's 1700 something you haven't been able to accomplish in 5000 games. 5000 for christ sake. Go study some chess and be quiet
I think you are the one who needs to shut up and be quiet. You are 1300 in long time controls. Even now, my slow time control is almost 200 points higher than yours, and it will go up obviously.
Chess is a game of patience and deep thinking. All best players in history are it and are remembered as such, not because they were amazing at the blunderfiesta of bullet or blitz, but because they were it at classical time controls. Where the best chess is being played by your opponent. Kasparov, Magnus, Fischer, Karpov, etc., even the current gen of super gms, such as Fabiano. Nepo, So, etc., are regarded as the greatest players because of their classical strength. Not their bullet or blitz strength.
Only the Naka generation of twitch acolytes believe those time controls to be a measure, because that's what he and the other streamers sell, because he can't obviously stream classical or stream advanced >2200 tactical/positional advise as he would lose his audience and his $$$$
So it's you who should sit down and be quiet.
Classical, rapid and blitz are the time controls that matter most in that order. There is a world championship for each one and Magnus is celebrated for winning all three commonly refered as the triple crown that's because people care about it. No one plays the "daily world championship" I don't even know if such a thing even exist. That format has no significance in chess. You keep trying to pair my daily rating with yours to try and win this argument when I don't even play daily and even though I don't play it the difference is 100pts. Yet the difference between your rapid and mine is ONE THOUSAND. So shut up. You also keep trying to pretend like rapid doesn't exist and only mention blitz and bullet. Rapid includes 30min that's long time control and yet in that format you cannot even break past 1000 after 5000 games
No one would remember Magnus or Hikaru if there were not 2800 GM players in classical, but good blitz or bullet players.
If Magnus Carlsen was the best bullet player on the planet, but was 2500 elo in classical, who would even consider him as candidate to be the greatest, along with Kasparov? Do you think Kasparov would be regarded as one of the best in history if he was just the best at blitz? No one would know who Kasparov is at this point in time. Magnus would be just another lower tier GM who's barely above IM level.
Bullet and Blitz (and Rapid) have no relevance either. The fact you think your 2000 means so much when you can't get past 1300 at slower time controls is hilarious.
There are not FIDE titles for those time controls, that clearly shows you how much they matter.
Just, stop, Mr 1300 elo.
Mar 25, 2023
0
#97
RespektMyAuthoritah wrote:
Ilampozhil25 wrote:
if someone is making an argument which goes wrong somewhere and you actually want to help them
explain where they are going wrong
the whole accuracy stuff is correct (from xor eax)
but erica and respekt are attacking that when they should atleast be attacking the "thus i am 1500" point
and personal attacks are just stupid
all of this can be generalised to any fight about any topic
so ratings shaming me would be logically useless
Na don't try to change history. He was the one who addressed me I wasn't even talking to him and he was the one that started with the personal attacks. But yea you're right this argument is stupid. He just got me mad with his dumb comments
Stop lying, everyone can read my initial reply to your comment at comment #52, and your reply to me on comment #55.
I explained something basic anyone who has analysed a game with an engine learns, and you just raged-attacked me for even daring to reply to your beloved titled player who came to the thread just to troll people and left.
I guess you are 1300 elo at lying too...
xor_eax_eax05 wrote:
RespektMyAuthoritah wrote:
Ilampozhil25 wrote:
if someone is making an argument which goes wrong somewhere and you actually want to help them
explain where they are going wrong
the whole accuracy stuff is correct (from xor eax)
but erica and respekt are attacking that when they should atleast be attacking the "thus i am 1500" point
and personal attacks are just stupid
all of this can be generalised to any fight about any topic
so ratings shaming me would be logically useless
Na don't try to change history. He was the one who addressed me I wasn't even talking to him and he was the one that started with the personal attacks. But yea you're right this argument is stupid. He just got me mad with his dumb comments
Stop lying, everyone can read my initial reply to your comment at comment #52, and your reply to me on comment #55.
I explained something basic anyone who has analysed a game with an engine learns, and you just raged-attacked me for even daring to reply to your beloved titled player who came to the thread just to troll people and left.
I guess you are 1300 elo at lying too...
Telling you that you have a cognitive bias known as dunning-kruger is an observation not an attack
Mar 25, 2023
0
#99
RespektMyAuthoritah wrote:
xor_eax_eax05 wrote:
RespektMyAuthoritah wrote:
Ilampozhil25 wrote:
if someone is making an argument which goes wrong somewhere and you actually want to help them
explain where they are going wrong
the whole accuracy stuff is correct (from xor eax)
but erica and respekt are attacking that when they should atleast be attacking the "thus i am 1500" point
and personal attacks are just stupid
all of this can be generalised to any fight about any topic
so ratings shaming me would be logically useless
Na don't try to change history. He was the one who addressed me I wasn't even talking to him and he was the one that started with the personal attacks. But yea you're right this argument is stupid. He just got me mad with his dumb comments
Stop lying, everyone can read my initial reply to your comment at comment #52, and your reply to me on comment #55.
I explained something basic anyone who has analysed a game with an engine learns, and you just raged-attacked me for even daring to reply to your beloved titled player who came to the thread just to troll people and left.
I guess you are 1300 elo at lying too...
Telling you that you have a cognitive bias known as dunning-kruger is an observation not an attack
Your "Master" came to the thread to troll and said something incredibly stupid, which can be proved with statistics - when someone under 900 elo plays a game at 20, 30 centipawn loss, it's not "blunder after blunder after blunder" and a sign of doing absolutely everything wrong. Else the engine would not give out such a good accuracy rating for them since the point of comparison is against the engine's best move and not the other player's move.
I clearly explained how it worked and all you did was say I was claiming to be better than a Master - which I never said - and accused me of drunning-kruger as an insult, when all I mentioned about centipawns etc., is true. Zero arguments to my reply, just a personal attack.
So yes yours was a personal attack, so dont come crying you are being victimised.
xor_eax_eax05 wrote:
RespektMyAuthoritah wrote:
xor_eax_eax05 wrote:
RespektMyAuthoritah wrote:
Ilampozhil25 wrote:
if someone is making an argument which goes wrong somewhere and you actually want to help them
explain where they are going wrong
the whole accuracy stuff is correct (from xor eax)
but erica and respekt are attacking that when they should atleast be attacking the "thus i am 1500" point
and personal attacks are just stupid
all of this can be generalised to any fight about any topic
so ratings shaming me would be logically useless
Na don't try to change history. He was the one who addressed me I wasn't even talking to him and he was the one that started with the personal attacks. But yea you're right this argument is stupid. He just got me mad with his dumb comments
Stop lying, everyone can read my initial reply to your comment at comment #52, and your reply to me on comment #55.
I explained something basic anyone who has analysed a game with an engine learns, and you just raged-attacked me for even daring to reply to your beloved titled player who came to the thread just to troll people and left.
I guess you are 1300 elo at lying too...
Telling you that you have a cognitive bias known as dunning-kruger is an observation not an attack
Your "Master" came to the thread to troll and said something incredibly stupid, which can be proved with statistics - when someone under 900 elo plays a game at 20, 30 centipawn loss, it's not "blunder after blunder after blunder" and a sign of doing absolutely everything wrong. Else the engine would not give out such a good accuracy rating for them since the point of comparison is against the engine's best move and the other player's move.
I clearly explained how it worked and all you did was say I was claiming to be better than a Master - which I never said - and accused me of drunning-kruger as an insult, when all I mentioned about centipawns etc., is true. Zero arguments to my reply, just a personal attack.
So yes yours was a personal attack, so dont come crying you are being victimised.
I respect titled players. I know how difficult it is to achieve what they have so I show respect. I listen to stronger players than me, I did that when I first started and still do to this day. I am humble enough to understand that there's a reason why someone who is stronger than me are where they are and I don't come up with excuses to make myself feel better. You on the other hand think you know better than everyone else. You've tried to downplay like 3 people's abilities all who happen to be better than you and you come up with all sort of excuses to hide your flaws. And no it was just an observation, just because the truth hurts your fragile ego doesn't make it a personal attack
Looking at all these 400 rated games I'm not sure all beginners would be rated this low. If you only know how the pieces move and the point values (and if you spend a long time on each move) it seems like these blunders would be impossible. Maybe some beginners are rated more like 800? After their first 100 games or something. Or is 800 too high?