3 reasons Why "Online Chess" ratings deserves no repsect - Chess Forums - Page 22

ThreePawnSac · 2013-05-03T09:40:22-07:00

*Please note that I am not saying CC (correspondance chess, AKA "online chess") is a stupid game type and should be ignored. I am merely pointing out my belief that these ratings should not be looked at when considering a player's skill.* At my chess club a 1700 was ecstatic to have bea

JagdeepSingh

Oct 30, 2013

0

#421

aww-rats wrote:

wik8 wrote:

any fool can spend 12 hours poring over a move, testing thirty variations and then make the right one; a very real and important skill in chess is finding the moves over the board.

Yep, I'm one of those fools. I started playing postal chess back in 1980 when my OTB rating was 2000. One year later all the hard work I spent analysing those games finding the best moves paid off. I returned to OTB play and shot right up to 2200, Why? Because postal chess taught me how to analyze and now I teach others to duplicate my success. It's all spelled out in my free video lessons course, linked in my profile. If not for postal chess, I doubt I would have ever made NM. I returned to postal play in 1986 and twice qualified into the world's championship cycle. If You have seen my countless games analysis videos, you will see how much chess knowledge I have acquired, and I owe it all to postal chess.

JagdeepSingh

Oct 30, 2013

0

#422

JagdeepSingh wrote:

ThreePawnSac wrote:

So is that it? End of topic? Maybe we should hold out for someone who achieved a little more than NM.

I said it before and I'll say it again. If you can translate your CC into a practical form of chess then I'm sure we can all respect you. But as far as merely being a strong correspondance player alone... laughable.

Please take it easy on the self-promotion mr. national master.

This guy (ThreePawnSac) is just self promoting & insulting a NM. Who the hell he is. BTW if you notice, he is just attention seeking kid. Jus did a 'boo' to get attention. Maybe he does not get any attention at all....lol

JagdeepSingh

Oct 30, 2013

0

#423

ThreePawnSac wrote:

boo

This is his post 441 to get this thread started again.

nameno1had

Oct 30, 2013

0

#424

Maybe we need to start a 3 reasons why online ratings deserve respect...

One...a titled player has basically the same rating OTB

Two... you can't beat him

three...after engine analysis, his moves are found to be human

Ziryab

Oct 30, 2013

0

#425

ThreePawnSac wrote:

rated 1908 USCF

USCF ID 12890290 http://www.uschess.org/component/option,com_wrapper/Itemid,181/

I've played in over a hundred tournaments in "real chess"

Your graph looks like mine, except that yours tops out lower. My climb is due to many things, but one of the most significant is the work I put into competing in correspondence ("Online") chess here and other sites.

I think that you can get over yourself.

Not only do I spend hours per move in many games, I blog about database use as a competitive tool. Take a look and learn something. Maybe you, too, can get your USCF over 1950.

http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2009/01/playing-with-databases.html

Oh, I'm a blitz junkie, too. In blitz, bullet, and standard my peak rating is far above yours. I'm glad that my Online rating shows by default, however, for it is the best and most accurate reflection of how I play sober.

apawndown

Oct 30, 2013

0

#426

Paul Keres, one of the all-time greats, and a world championship contender through the 40s-50s-60s, learned the game through correspondence chess when he was a young boy.

Ryan_Davidson

Oct 30, 2013

0

#427

I read only the first page. All I can say is the OP has got to be the most stupid person I have met on here. First of all, all ratings on this site arent real.

My online is much higher than my live cause I play online usually when I wake up in the mornings and am refreshed, and I play live when I get home from work and I am far from sober. xD

nameno1had

Oct 30, 2013

0

#428

macer75

Oct 30, 2013

0

#429

ThreePawnSac wrote:

boo

u mean "bump"?

nameno1had

Oct 30, 2013

0

#430

macer75 wrote:

ThreePawnSac wrote:

boo

u mean "bump"?

lol...nothing like self promotion...

chesshole

Oct 30, 2013

0

#431

LongIslandMark wrote:

manspider29 wrote:

Ok, I know all you guys believe that people cheat and use engines, and spend almost half an hour or more on each move, however I do neither. I usually play my moves in, at the absolute most, 2 min, and play about 300 games at a time. You probably don't think this when you look at my rating, but I don't play a lot of live. I have only played 1 game in the last month, and I had the same cc rating as I had standard, bullet and blitz back then.

But I guess you'll never believe me. . .

You are putting yourself at a disadvantage against those of us that play CC chess differently. I play 3 or 4 games at a time, sometimes (not always but when it seems important) spend 2 or 3 hours on the move, then sometimes sleep on it and another 30 minutes or so the next day before I play my move. (sometimes just a few minutes like you play, but sometimes not)

If two players with otherwise equal ability were playing a game and one always made a move in two minutes, but the other chose to sometimes take several hours to consider the move, I think most would agree the player taking several hours would have an advantage.

spend 2 to 3 hours on a single move? LOL

derek

Oct 31, 2013

0

#432

najdorf96

Oct 31, 2013

0

#433

When i was younger, i love playing blitz (5min mostly)..."one win, you're in til one loss you're out". Unlike Classical, you could experiment with an x-amount of lines, variations with all sorts of patzers, players, tournament players, retired Experts, Masters, kibitzers etc in about 2 hours! I'm sure if there was such an thing as Live Blitz games back then, my ratings would be up there too (and probably Standard as well, while we're at it). But even back then, i respected Postal or Correspondence players because being up theoretically over an opponent OTB, is ruled out. Gameday anxiety, expectations as well. "Catching" them on an swindle, playing fast to psyche'em out, letting your time run down on an automatic recapture to make them second guess themselves-are effectively nil. Only your will, long-range strategy in setting them up for the ultimate kill, experience, overall analytical ability, tactical awareness and accumulated knowledge from your opponent's tendencies (while limiting as much as you can your own falliables) determines success.

Irontiger

Oct 31, 2013

0

#434

Ryan_Davidson wrote:

I read only the first page. All I can say is the OP has got to be the most stupid person I have met on here.

You don't go out on these forums very often, do you ?

Tyrrhenus

Oct 31, 2013

0

#435

The trick of happiness is to not give a rat's ass about ratings when it comes to online chess. What should matter is learning to play a better chess, meeting new people and having fun, always keeping in mind that there are cheaters, like in every human competitive activity. As time goes by, you do meet players who enjoy playing in total fairness (I think most of players do NOT cheat, but I don't care if they do). Those who are obsessed with ratings just don't get the point of playing chess I think

Ziryab

Oct 31, 2013

0

#436

LongIslandMark wrote:

Do online ratings "deserve respect"? I suppose that is up to the individual. I don't think of them as anything but a means to get matched with an equally skilled opponent for the sort of chess that I'm playing. That's all they really are.

That's all they were ever supposed to be. Ratings are a statistical system that employ past results to predict future results insofar as those predictions are useful in pairing players for good competition. In Swiss System tournaments, they are particularly useful for the first round.

(My wife tells me that she won't love me any more if my Online rating drops below 2000.)

Ziryab

Oct 31, 2013

0

#437

YeOldeWildman wrote:

Ratings are a measure of one's effectiveness against other players in the same rating pool -- nothing more, nothing less. At best, all they do is give you an estimate of how well your opponent is likely to play at that particular style of chess.

It is true that one's online rating will be a function of both one's intrinsic chess skill (whatever that is) and the degree to which one supplements it with resources that are unavailable in other formats such as blitz or OTB. Your opponent may be, for example, (1) a chess master who is playing 200 games and spends 20 seconds per move or (2) a club player with a good library and a lot of time to devote to a few games. However, if person 1 and person 2 have the same rating, that means that statistically they are equally effective in playing online chess in their chosen style.

.

I'm the latter.

I am in the top six in my local club (the top players in my city at present are A Class USCF), and have been runner-up in the city championship three times (2008, 2012, 2013). In 2008, my adversary was a FIDE Master who beat me 2 1/2 -1/2. Games two and three were "harder than they should have been," according to the master. My OTB was ~1750 at the time. It was 1982 at the start of the 2012 match against an expert.

Since that peak in 2012. my OTB has been in decline, but in September 2013 my correspondence ratings hit new peaks on two different sites within two weeks of each other, and here it has climbed further. That is the first time that I reached peak correspondence ratings on two sites at one time. I think that is evidence of improvement.

Ratings serve as a measure against one's own past performance, as well as a tool for finding appropriate opponents. Improvement merits self-respect.

If I crave the respect of strangers in an online chess forum because of my correspondence skill, then I deserve less self-respect than the OP.

bean_Fischer

Oct 31, 2013

0

#438

Agree with Tyrrhenus #460. Rating doesn't matter.

"Those who are obsessed with ratings just don't get the point of playing chess I think".

Correct. If you are 1500, you will be matched with 1500. That's the fun begins when two players of equal skill.

If you are 1500, then matched vs 2000+. That's not fun both sides. 2000+ may won, but no full enjoyment. But 1500 will think chess is a difficult thing.

If 2000+ loses, that would hurt their rating.

So rating just serves the purpose of chess enjoyment. If you are in 5th grade and given college math, you may quit school. The other way, if a college junior (3rd year) is given 5th grade math, they will feel insulted.

On the job, a college graduate is not supposed to be a janitor. Well, a janitor with a manager salary.

The_Ghostess_Lola

Oct 31, 2013

0

#439

I agree with the #464 poster and that baby steps is the best path. And Happy Halloween to all my friends.

Kevin-27

Oct 31, 2013

0

#440

I will never play correspondence chess. becuase i feel like the time limit is what makes it fun. OTB with no clock is fun too becuase you can talk to them.