On the Black side of the Fried Liver, three hours for one move may be rushed.
3 reasons Why "Online Chess" ratings deserves no repsect
Sort:
chesshole wrote:
LongIslandMark wrote:
chesshole wrote:
[...]
[...] 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)
[...]
spend 2 to 3 hours on a single move? LOL
Sure, three hours on a move - like I said when is seems important. Are you laughing at me because I'm not taking enough time or too much?
Say there are 5 possible moves I could reasonably make, and I analyze each of them 6 or 7 moves deep, and consider all the possible alternate reponses the opponent could make. Then if I feel like it, I'll look at some of the speculative moves. That could easily take hours.To my mind, that's was is great about CC games.
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.
3 hours is way too much per move
You don't start at 3 hours. When I first started playing CC I wasn't sure how you could spend more than a few minutes per move. Now I find myself spending 30 minutes or more on tough moves. Maybe a year from now I'll be spending several hours on moves.
Ziryab wrote:
(My wife tells me that she won't love me any more if my Online rating drops below 2000.)
---------------------------------------------
If your rating starts to plummet towards the threshold, challenge me to a few games.
JagdeepSingh wrote:
ThreePawnSac wrote:
boo
This is his post 441 to get this thread started again.
yeah and apparently it worked.
ThreePawnSac wrote:
JagdeepSingh wrote:
ThreePawnSac wrote:
boo
This is his post 441 to get this thread started again.
yeah and apparently it worked.
Congratulations. Your objective to launch a troll in the forums has been successfully reached.
I hope you enjoy this as one of your greatest achievements ever.
The OP's opinion may be right. "Online ratings" shouldn't carry more weight on this site. But i disagree with the premise that their opinions or threads don't warrant due respect. As duly noted, most posters with credible Online ratings have more than insightful, articulate, and purposeful comments to add in many discussions; be it in Openings, Games analysis, General Discussions etc....you name it. Oftentimes, their anecdotes alone are relatable, as well as helpful (to newbies & experienced beginners alike).
Nov 1, 2013
0
#449
Irontiger wrote:
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 ?
not really, have a real life lol.
Nov 1, 2013
0
#450
najdorf96 wrote:
The OP's opinion may be right. "Online ratings" shouldn't carry more weight on this site. [snipped away that part I endorse]
Of course it is right. It is his opinion. Who can dispute that's what he believes?
Nonetheless, his argument is characterized by false premises, illogical development, and absurd conclusions.
There's really no evidence that players with high correspondence ("Online") ratings are respected here. Even titled players are spoken to as if they are newbs (usually by newbs, but that's almost everyone). I'm in the top 15% of USCF players, but am top 3% in blitz on this site. That difference says something about the average strength here.
You don't have to treat a chess.com rating as 'real'. It's there so you can challenge yourself to improve. I don't expect my national rating to alter directly because of what happens on chess.com but I do hope to play better if I practise intensively on chess.com. I would say just treat the chess.com rating with all its 'caveats' about using silicon, getting help etc. Personally I don't care what my opponents are doing - if (for eg) they get help on the opening . call on computers etc so be it . Just another challenge on the chessboard!
im 1679 online and yet can beat a 2000, 1700 and 1600 in a 1,2,3,5, 10 min blitz and yes i also lose to 1300s from time to time why because this is chess you win some you lose some. If the OP of this want to prove his point then let him be a man and prove himself in a match 15 mins, 10 mins 5mins game against us on -line rated players whom he say dont deserve respect becasue of other things he thinks on-line chess does. Blah blahs doesnt make any sense. Play us on-line rated players and prove your point. Like the old chinese man saying "Be A man". AMen?....AMen!!!!
online,blitz,bullet all ratings are hyped.Only standard live rating represents a player's strength.case closed/
Nov 1, 2013
0
#456
creolord wrote:
online,blitz,bullet all ratings are hyped.Only standard live rating represents a player's strength.case closed/
Right! That's the part of the site where cheating is least likely.
(Do I need to post a smiley that says SATIRE?)
Nov 1, 2013
0
#457
chess_gg wrote:
I'll tell you who I think deserves no respect.
It's the freeloaders like the OP who pay nothing on a website like this and they do a lot of bitchin'.
I run into these creeps all the time on this site. Just as I did when I owned small businesses. One of my businesses was small apartment buildings. These creeps wouldn't pay the rent yet wouldn't leave, would damage the property, would have a haughty attitude, would think that somehow they are being victimized...
Losers. Freeloading bums. "I don't like this... I don't like that."
Chess.com could easily 1) prevent freeloaders from posting, or 2) limit the number of their posts, or 3) prevent them from creating new threads.
ThreePawnSac erased his comment when he realized he was talking aboiut the other guy's rating based on only one game!
And before anyone asks: yes, my online rating is higher than my live chess standard and blitz. But keep in mind I played few live chess games here and won all of them.
Nov 1, 2013
0
#459
II-Oliveira wrote:
...
And before anyone asks: yes, my online rating is higher than my live chess standard and blitz. But keep in mind I played few live chess games here and won all of them.
Just about everyone's online rating is higher than their live ratings. The average ratings for blitz is 1109 while the average rating for "standard" (read correspondence) is 1356. If you were to add ~250 points to a person's blitz rating, you would be close to guessing their online rating most of the time.
It's no wonder that people put more stock in their correspondence ratings. That's usually their highest rating.
But blitz and bullet ratings are closer to over-the-board ratings.
[...] 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)
[...]
spend 2 to 3 hours on a single move? LOL
Sure, three hours on a move - like I said when is seems important. Are you laughing at me because I'm not taking enough time or too much?
Say there are 5 possible moves I could reasonably make, and I analyze each of them 6 or 7 moves deep, and consider all the possible alternate reponses the opponent could make. Then if I feel like it, I'll look at some of the speculative moves. That could easily take hours.To my mind, that's was is great about CC games.
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.
3 hours is way too much per move