My Weapon of Choice: The Ruy Lopez (Pt. 6)

It is!?  Since when?  Do you know what slander means? 

Like I said before:  I don't take orders from you.

You claim to have played a senior master. Who ? Why would a SM play you ? Was it a simul exhibition perhaps ? When I was a C class players even the A class players were reluctant to play me, certainly no titled player wanted to waste their time, nor mine. I just wasnt a challenge for them and they understood this, so did I . Did you play a senior aster otb ? If so, did the game take place in CA or HI ? Why cant you tell his name? Even today I can recall playing strong players several decades ago when I was just starting tournament chess and it was a memorable experience. I was eager to tell people who I played and what happened... names that come to mind from the 70s are Marty Appleberry, Reuben Schocron and Milan Momic.

OP got served, just admit it and stop trying to claim you're better than you are.

 Wow! This thread seriously got out of control.  Fortunately not all titled players are as stuck up and conceded as you are.  You make it sound like SM and NM or FM all walk with their nose in the air and look down at the rest of us with disgust. 

Look at the current top rated player in the U.S., Hikaru Nakamura.  People have said that he is one of the most approachable players in that rating level.  He willingly plays people with lower ratings than his just for the love of the game.

I'm sorry that you feel like you walk in the clouds above everyone else, but we all start somewhere.  It's not like you woke up one morning and suddenly became an NM.  Ratings is just an approximation of playing strength.  Hawaii only has one major tournament a year.  Players here are practicing, playing, and studying all year long.  They're improving in playing strength but their ratings stay the same.  It is not unusual here to have an 1100 rated player play at a 1500 level or higher.

wow. wow. this thread is lol.

kudos to brandon for working hard towards achieving his goal. However I think he should have focused on telling his main (arguer!) that the reason his otb rating is not high is not because he is lazy or conceited, but because they simply are not available quite readily in his area! (I think he said that it's not like NY).  Or that he doesn't have the time to!

Thus, he could only base his "theoretical otb rating" on the other stuff he does - the online chess, etc. 

For REB to accuse him of posing as an expert is kinda naive. Look, Reb, we know how hard it is to get the NM title.  Well, I know how hard it is to gain 100 rating points >.>    But try to understand that everybody has dreams and most want to eventually become a master. Like you've never been in his situation before.

Be honest, we all have.   And most of us (including me) still are!

-shuttlechess92

You miss the point.  It's demeaning to people who have worked hard and accompmlished a high FIDE rating to have some patzer come in and claim to be just as talented because of a faulty online rating system.

 For your information, I am not stuck up at all. The titled players that dont play with much lower rated players dont do this because they are stuck up either. Most of them just realize they would slaughter the other guy much of the time and what would be the point ? Some may be stuck up, true . This happens in sports and other areas of life to with people that are in the top % of whatever it is they do. The problem is with a C class player making bogus claims of being on the verge of expert class uscf. The actual fact of the matter is that 2 whole classes away is NOT on the verge at all. He could claim he's on the verge of B class level and that would be true.

 EXACTLY

i gotta agree with Reb and rainbowrising with this one brandon.. there is just no evidence that even mildly suggests that you are close to 2000 OTB, Everyone thinks they're underrated. but if it happens that you are almost at 2000 then congrats and good luck in the future, of course i would never know. im just saying it doesnt seem like it

Sorry, but i have to go with Reb on this one as well. I have been playing OTB chess for over 30 years and 1557 is NO Where near Expert. Now before you get upset let me explain. You say you are working really hard to improve your game and that is great. I am currently rated 1796 USCF and have a Tourn. in a couple of weeks that with luck will put me over 1800. That is still quite a way from 2000. Beating B players does not make you an expert and as for lasting 20 moves with a player rated 2400 well i lasted  that long with IM Ed Formanek in a Rated USCF tourn. but that only means we were still in book NOTHING more.

This thread is amusing. In my experience most chess players think they are under-rated and most people are absolutely no good at estimating their own rating. They selectively remember whent hey almost had a draw against that 2100 and this makes them think they are as good as 2100! (Not saying that's what has happened here.)

People tend to hang on to one thing (or a few things) and base their estimation of their rating on that. They had one good tournament, one good game, there is one player they beat a couple times who is higher rated, etc. They often miss out on the bigger picture.

People also tend to bargain for more rating. "Well, everyone I play is under-rated."

The story about lasting a long time against a high rated player reminds me of someone I knew in college. In his first tournament he had a game against a master (2250 or so). He lost a pawn in the opening, the master calmly spent the middle game simplifying to a winning ending and won the king and pawn ending. My friend was so proud of having "lasted to a king and pawn ending against a master" when the truth of it is that he just got trounced and he couldn't even tell.

Bottom line. Don't claim something about your rating until you have the results for it. What's the point? Bragging on the internet about how you are nearly expert strength? No one is impressed by anyone else's rating.

Yes, this thread has gotten way out of hand and is depressing. Thank you to the people who have gotten my back.

First of all, let's make it clear that I am not pretending to be a titled player. The USCF ranks of Class A and Expert are in no way official titles.

I have never tried to demean the title of Master, and if you read the points, you'll know what I'm saying. In fact, as I have generously shared in this forum, it is my 2-5 year goal to become a Master, and so I have been diligently working towards that goal everyday. In one year, I feel I have brought my play strength from about 1450 USCF to about 1950 USCF. Over the course of that one year, I've posted my games (mostly my losses) and shared my stories. I've never played at Master strength, so I don't know if or when I'll get there. But after a year of hard work, I brought myself from being able to play at a 1450 level to a level that is much higher: beating official 1600 USCF on a regular basis with ease, beating lots of strong players, beating the computer here with tournament time controls, playing against real Masters and doing well (though still losing), playing against official Class A and Expert players. I figure that if I can get this far in one year, maybe I can raise my level of play another 250 points in the next 2-5 years. It's just a dream right now, but I think it sounds doable.

In conclusion, please stop jumping on the bandwagon people. Saying that I feel like I play at or near USCF 2000 strength is in no way, shape, or form "bragging, demeaning, or boasting." I study my game everyday, and I am my own harshest critic.

I'm a straight A graduate student with a full scholarship. With chess, I felt like, why was my high school rating USCF 1400-ish (I don't remember the exact number)? With a good attitude and hard work and the proper curriculum, can't a disciplined person raise their level of play? I mean, on average, I must have studied chess for about 20 hours/week for the past year, which is the equivalent of taking a couple of semesters worth of classes on the subject.

I started playing last summer, and I achieved that 1550 rating in just six weeks. And if the ratings here weren't so deflated, it would be a lot higher. Scientifically, if you have the same 50 people play in tournaments over and over again, only a hand full of ratings will improve. However, nearly all the players will improve. But because chess only awards you points if you win, the same people will win and increase their ratings, while the same people will constantly win and lose, thus beating up on each other and bringing their ratings down.

If you and 10 others are all rated 1180, and are all improving, but only play each other, no one will get anywhere. Even the clear winner out of the group will only progress so far, as his highest wins will be against 1100s and 1200s. But everyone in the group far surpasses 1180. That's what it's like to play chess in Hawaii. To get to 1550, I had to go "conquer" a bunch of 1200s, which in theory, should get checkmated in about a dozen moves, the same way as if a true 2000 goes up against an active Master, he or she will simply get crushed.

NM Reb and Loomis

Oh my goodness. Yes the Master I played in question was at a club in Hawaii. And no it was not illusions of grandeur. It was not a simul. It was a serious man-to-man game at the club, with tournament time controls and rules enforced, playing for the stakes of pride, respect, and love of the game. I remember the first game we played so vividly still after months have gone by.

I really wanted him to be White and show me something cool. But he firmly insisted that I play White. I also insisted that the stronger player should play White, but I didn't want to offend him because I also naturally offer all the kids who play at my club to be White since I know it will give them a minor handicap.

I spent about 2 minutes before opening 1. Nf3. He laughed to himself, and shouted out, "hypermodern!" And he responded by slamming down 1. Nf6. Then I had another deep think of about 2-3 minutes, thinking of what opening I wanted to transpose to. I decided to go for a Queen's Gambit-type setup as that was my tournament repertoire at the time, 2. d4. He responded with 1. ... c5 which is I guess a sort of weird Benoni transposition.

At that point, I've read about the Benoni, but I've never played it, so I decided to try and transpose again, this time with 3. c4 hoping for a sort of QGD, I don't know, Tarrasch-esque type game. From there, the game went on like a normal QGD type game, with both of us making what I thought were pretty good moves for me. The next dozen or so moves all fall in and out of book anyway, so I figure even a Master has a hard time breaking up a set QGD type position if played somewhat accurately.

After about 20 turns, I thought I almost blundered a pawn, but I was able to hold it via a mass exchange of all the Rooks and Queens. Material was still even, but this left the Master with a passed pawn. And my endgame play was weak (and still is weak, which was a semi-point in the original point of this thread), and I'm not sure if a minor piece per side was on the board or not, but I fell apart in the K vs. pawn endgame.

So yes, I got crushed, as we both knew that that was going to be the outcome all along. But we had a good game and a great postmortem. And you know what, I made a good friend; something that would not have happened if I tried to argue moves or try to chicken out of the game, or try for a cutthroat win at all costs.

So Loomis and NM Reb, while I appreciate your comments, if you still have nothing better to say about my career than, "oh he's dreaming that he played a Master, he's a fraud trying to represent himself with a 2000 USCF rating, etc." please let's just end the discussion here.

I have been more than candid, sincere, respectful, and honest in defending my theses and answering your charges. Good day to you both.

Yeah, I know about this concept. It happened here in Buffalo too, until I moved passed the U1600 section finally.

In Hawaii it's even worse, there is are no sections. In the biggest tournament we have here each year, we're lucky to attract 40-50 people in one "giant" open section. In a small tournament, you're lucky if you get 20, so not much room for sections. However, the 15-man tournament I entered, while still an open contest, did award me a prize for winning the unrated/1200 with a total score of 3.5/5 that surpassed all the 1200 and below players there.

Problem solved then, buy a bus pass and go to a few tournaments in California. Then we can all watch you rack up the rating points 

RainbowRising

Seriously, why do you have to stir up trouble. Haven't I posted enough times that I in absolutely no way consider myself a titled player.

If you look at the precise wording of grammar in the original thread, it goes something along the lines of, "I feel I'm approaching the USCF Expert threshold."

For those of us who know how to read that implies:

1. The player in question states that he or she did not cross said threshold, thus is not claiming to be anything, only claiming to be close to something.

2. If you check your facts, 2000 USCF is not an official title. In order to receive such an honor, one must achieve a rating of 2200. I have never claimed to be anywhere near this mark.

So please, I've been as honest and patient and civil as possible in this thread. Save your uneducated remarks for others like you elsewhere.

Oh yes, sure that's no problem, just find the time and money to buy a bus pass, locate a venue, see if a bus actually goes there, see if I have the time and schedule to even play that weekend, walk about 2 miles up and down hill to the nearest bus stop to me, bring a whole bunch of food, clothes, chess board, pieces, and clock and books on a bus, and hope i both get there in time and hope the venue ends in time so I'll be able to catch the bus back. then walk another 2 miles uphill after I finish the tournament and be ready for classes in a day or so. yes, easy peesy solution right?