The label "murderer" for a person who fought in wars is a matter of political perspective. One man's rebel is another man's murderer. If you two are going to debate Che, you might want to create a special thread in "off-topic".
1600 at last!
Sort:
1600 is a good rating
but who cares what others think about your rating.
in the end nobody cares about your ability to play chess so don't look for others for acceptance:
http://inoveryourhead.net/no-one-cares-if-you-succeed-or-fail-why-i-walked-500-miles-barefoot/
rowsweep wrote:
1600 is a good rating
but who cares what others think about your rating.
in the end nobody cares about your ability to play chess so don't look for others for acceptance:
http://inoveryourhead.net/no-one-cares-if-you-succeed-or-fail-why-i-walked-500-miles-barefoot/
Well I didn't expect anybody's acceptance, but wanted to proclaim with joy that fact!!
Sep 11, 2014
0
#45
Good for you! Congrats. I reached 1600 a while ago, but can't get to 1700.
evdneflsluoe wrote:
You do realize that correspondence ratings are atleast 500 points higher than your real rating, right? Your rating is actually 1000-1100 which is pretty bad after playing for seven years.
Yours is not terribly impressive either.
Sep 11, 2014
0
#47
reaching a rating isn't difficult - keeping it is.
you are now expected to win more. get less point for a win.
and if you lose you decrease fast.
Jimmykay wrote:
all ratings "count". If someone is 200 points higher that me at chess.com bullet, and 200 points lower that me OTB FIDE, than they are better than me at chess.com bullet and worse at standard OTB FIDE games.
This is not hard to understand, people.
That's not really true, as I said. For instance look at the original poster's games, his play is not even close to a 1600 level player, it's more like the 1100 rating he has in all other time formats.
evdneflsluoe wrote:
Jimmykay wrote:
all ratings "count". If someone is 200 points higher that me at chess.com bullet, and 200 points lower that me OTB FIDE, than they are better than me at chess.com bullet and worse at standard OTB FIDE games.
This is not hard to understand, people.
That's not really true, as I said. For instance look at the original poster's games, his play is not even close to a 1600 level player, it's more like the 1100 rating he has in all other time formats.
You clearly didn't understand what he said at all. He's saying that all ratings matter, but only when comparing within the same type of rating.
For example, someone who is 1400 at live blitz is better at live blitz than someone rated 1200 in live blitz. But you can't argue that someone rated 1400 in live blitz is better than someone rated 1300 in live standard, because they are two different types of rating.
The original creator of this thread is happy about reaching 1600 in online correspondence. It doesn't matter what the OTB rating equivalent is; it could be 500, or it could be 9000. There is no direct correlation between different rating types.
evdneflsluoe wrote:
Jimmykay wrote:
all ratings "count". If someone is 200 points higher that me at chess.com bullet, and 200 points lower that me OTB FIDE, than they are better than me at chess.com bullet and worse at standard OTB FIDE games.
This is not hard to understand, people.
That's not really true, as I said. For instance look at the original poster's games, his play is not even close to a 1600 level player, it's more like the 1100 rating he has in all other time formats.
just because an idiot says something does not make it true. (yes, you are the idiot.)
The OP's blitz rating at chess.com reflects his blitz ability at chess.com.
The OP's bullet rating at chess.com reflects his bullet ability at chess.com.
The OP's OTB rating at chess.com reflects his OTB ability at OTB.
They are seperate. The ratings represent that which they represent. It is quite simple. I hope that you eventually develop the intelligence to understand this very basic thing. Until then, I will continue to think that you are a moron.
Read what SicilianSvesh said in the post before this one. He said the same thing as I am saying, particularly his wise last line: "There is no direct correlation between different rating types. "
LongIslandMark wrote:
I think 1600's online on this site is a decent rating. From my experience, that's around where you are past the hanging pieces, walking into mates, and losing to tactics in 1 - you're on to the losing in 3 or 4 move tactics.
Can't help but agree, friend!
Sep 12, 2014
0
#52
LongIslandMark wrote:
I think 1600's online on this site is a decent rating. From my experience, that's around where you are past the hanging pieces, walking into mates, and losing to tactics in 1 - you're on to the losing in 3 or 4 move tactics.
No way, I still drop pieces and walk into checkmates 
Guys, he reached 1600 in online, so what? Why are you so negative about it? Improvment happens at different time. Just let the guy life his life!
evdneflsluoe wrote:
Jimmykay wrote:
all ratings "count". If someone is 200 points higher that me at chess.com bullet, and 200 points lower that me OTB FIDE, than they are better than me at chess.com bullet and worse at standard OTB FIDE games.
This is not hard to understand, people.
That's not really true, as I said. For instance look at the original poster's games, his play is not even close to a 1600 level player, it's more like the 1100 rating he has in all other time formats.
We must have sympathy about guys like 'evdneflsluoe'! No one has been good to them from birth , so they become 'killjoys' wherever they go!
patzermike wrote:
Good for you! Congrats. I reached 1600 a while ago, but can't get to 1700.
That is my predicament , too friend!
girls like guys with big ratings
rowsweep wrote:
girls like guys with big ratings
clown
Congrats on getting to 1600 in online turn-by-turn.
Nice post by Till.
I don't believe that means you are 1100 OTB. My understanding is that your 1600 might translate into something 100-200 points lower in, for example, the United States Chess Federation (USCF). I'm not positive about that, and I don't know how USCF relates to FIDE or organizations in other countries. Who cares how long it took. It's not a race.
Chicken_Monster wrote:
Congrats on getting to 1600 in online turn-by-turn.
Nice post by Till.
I don't believe that means you are 1100 OTB. My understanding is that your 1600 might translate into something 100-200 points lower in, for example, the United States Chess Federation (USCF). I'm not positive about that, and I don't know how USCF relates to FIDE or organizations in other countries. Who cares how long it took. It's not a race.
There is likely no reliable translation of online chess to OTB chess. It is a function of how much time you spend on each move in online chess and how much you use books and other source material.
EricFleet wrote:
Chicken_Monster wrote:
Congrats on getting to 1600 in online turn-by-turn.
Nice post by Till.
I don't believe that means you are 1100 OTB. My understanding is that your 1600 might translate into something 100-200 points lower in, for example, the United States Chess Federation (USCF). I'm not positive about that, and I don't know how USCF relates to FIDE or organizations in other countries. Who cares how long it took. It's not a race.
There is likely no reliable translation of online chess to OTB chess. It is a function of how much time you spend on each move in online chess and how much you use books and other source material.
I agree, but I'm sure there is a correlation. 100-200 delta seems reasonable if you examine the center of the bell curve. Also, my friend and former colleage is a USCF Expert rated at about 2100 and he thought 100-200 sounded about right. 500 delta seems like an outlier.
Well, I have completed 270 games.