I mated the GM!
Sort:
Maybe when you are offering up coaching lessons to us patzers (bad players), you could make the first lesson a guide about objective self analysis. A more realistic rating point spread would be one like that of the Real USCF National Master Phillip Ponomarev, whose rating DO show up on the USCF and Fide listing. He has a USCF rating of 2363 (as of the May 2008 supplement) and a FIDE rating of 2210 (as of the April 2008 listing). A win against a strong opponent is worthy of praise, but let's be sure we're posting accurate information, considering that said material is being referenced for an example of ones ability to coach paid lessons.
myuselessid wrote: nice
There is nothing special about the game: the opening: boring, slight edge for white, but both sides are sitting in their chairs, waiting for a blunder (and for opponent's approaching timetrouble). This is not REAL chess, where plans are made, combinations are carefully prepared. I cannot learn anything from such games.
After c. 30 moves, white made a strategical mistake, he misplaced his bishop on c6.
Then black tried hard to exploit this, by opening the f-file (obvious plan). Still there was not yet a big advantage for black. Then timetrouble decided the game.
No, not good chess . But good blitz, since you apparently didn't blunder as much as the GM did.
Mandelshtam
Great game.
Reb wrote: The only Gary Brabant I find listed on the rating lists of uschess.org (uscf ratings) is under 1500. Very strange.....
Keep in mind this is 3-minute blitz, and the game doesn't appear to be very tactical.
The GM was probably trying to create complications, and underestimated the kingside pressure before it was too late.
May 11, 2009
0
#25
BlackWaive wrote:
Reb wrote: The only Gary Brabant I find listed on the rating lists of uschess.org (uscf ratings) is under 1500. Very strange.....
Keep in mind this is 3-minute blitz, and the game doesn't appear to be very tactical.
The GM was probably trying to create complications, and underestimated the kingside pressure before it was too late.
I think Reb's point was that Stompu gives his name on his profile as Gary Brabant and gives a USCF rating of 2265, whereas the only Gary Brabant on the USCF list, also in California, has a 1479 rating
nice
Steinar, who are you calling arrogant fools ?
http://main.uschess.org/component/option,com_wrapper/Itemid,181/
Gary Brabant of Ca is a weak player with a sub- 1700 uscf , yet lies about his uscf rating here and is so "wise" as to give his real name.
Here is what I think has happened.
The original poster has not played in a rated OTB event for several years, when he stopped his rating was slightly below 1500. Now several years later he has beaten a GM at blitz and is likely a 2000+ OTB player, so to add credibility to his posts and persona on this website he gives himself a 2200 USCF rating (yet no NM title because he doesn't actually have one) which is his own estimation of his real playing ability.
For what it's worth he probably would be fairly close to 2200...
judgeofthenight wrote:
that master plays VERY VERY BAD!!
Not just a Master a very dangerous Grandmaster with a rating up there you know 3000 that's elite territory.
What are the odds anyone can beat someone that strong? fluke.
Well he still only win less than 1% of the game so it doesn't mean he has a really high rating.
May 14, 2009
0
#31
alec94x wrote:
judgeofthenight wrote:
that master plays VERY VERY BAD!!
Not just a Master a very dangerous Grandmaster with a rating up there in the 3000 rating.
What are the odds anyone can beat someone that strong? fluke luck.
The odds are slim, but under time pressure it's perfectly feasible.
Anyone who doesnt believe Kasparov is a "true GM" can be dismissed as a nut imo. Please tell us in what tourney Kasparov lost 3 games to non-GMs ? He doesnt even play in tournies that have non-GMs playing for many years that I am aware of..... maybe you are talking about before he was a super GM himself ?
Probably talking about Kasparov doing a pre-natal simul. 
May 15, 2009
0
#34
demetrios18 wrote:
. Karpov also states that players back in 1985 where much weaker than todays players and that a GM in 1985 would probably have a rating of in mid 1800's-2000.
Let's see if I can beat Reb to it
HOGWASH
or as we'd say here
Ballocks.
I'd like to point this out..
VERY annoying -- His title: I mate "the" grandmaster
the in there is hella annoying, there are more then 900 grandmasters and your saying it like theres only 1.. AAAAAAAAAAAH
And yeah pretty hard to believe some1 at ur skill level beat some1 at a gm skill level
