I rarely beat players rated above me online but in real life I have begun to crush 2000's, most likely because of the pressure that I have in a game that I feel truly matters to me. The OP's qualities and potential will definitely manifest themselves after a few tournament games and there is very strong evidence to suggest this.
Am I too Positional?
Sort:
Apr 8, 2018
0
#83
I think he should focus on smositional play. Smositional understanding is the key to success in chess.
sadkid2008 wrote:
chessman1504 wrote:
sadkid2008 wrote:
chessman1504 wrote:
sadkid2008 wrote:
The number of comments that attack the poster's rating is really quite shameful. First of all, rating is actually irrelevant in chess; the best player in the world could have never played on chess.com, and could create a new account and start at a modest 1200 -- but he would still be the best player in the world. From his obvious knowledge of chess history, once of the most important aspects of chess, Herceg demonstrates more chess potential than anyone else in this thread. On top of this, his theory that positional knowledge is useless shows that he is willing to bring up deep, radical ideas fearlessly, another quality of someone destined for greatness. Anyone on this thread who mocks him, I want you to know that you are playing a role analogous to that of the religious leaders who wished to silence the claims of those who believed the world was round in ancient times. I wish Herceg luck on his inevitable path as a great chess thinker of the modern world.
Unfortunately, this analogy breaks down when you see how many games he has played. Best player in the world would have a higher rating after playing that number of games. Honestly, the claim that rating is irrelevant is just false in general. What is true is that rating doesn't determine everything. In certain cases the stronger claim is true, such as your example of the best player (ahem Carlsen) joining chess.com, but the reason this is not pertinent is that the best player would easily have a 2800+ rating after hundreds of games. No one is actually attacking him, just claiming that such a rating is reason to reevaluate some things about his/her chess understanding and/or perception of it.
The fact is, reaching a level of chess understanding where one can fruitfully compare the games of Karpov/Fischer/Kasparov (at least on the level the OP wants to discuss) is hard. Really hard, and just knowing chess history/chess games is not sufficient. I know a ton of chess history too, but that doesn't change the fact that I am still a 1500+ player, because I don't actually have well-developed tactical vision, and my positional/strategic understanding is almost nil. I suppose what I'm really saying is, I'm not attacking him anymore than I'm attacking myself(!)
I can see you are a reasonable person; I was referring to others who made clearly degrading comments. Your argument makes sense in theory, but, as Dwight Eisenhower cleverly stated, "All rating systems are arbitrary. The only proof of skill is on the battlefield." This underrated maxim completely undermines your claim that playing more games will show your true skill level in your rating, because, after all, these minor games mean naught when the real battle takes place.
One should be careful to argue a point from vague general principles, or purely from authority, or from "underrated maxims" that are taken purely out of context. These arguments have no substance if not properly executed. Dwight Eisenhower was awesome, and also perfectly capable of being wrong. We must use our own heads here. The claim is that it's reasonable to believe the OP's rating is only low because these are minor games, and that should he be put in a more serious context, then we would really know his true strength. The thing is, I believe this is naive, because playing actual tournament games is much tougher than playing online games. In my (admittedly limited) experience, if one only has a 1200 rating on chess.com, it's unlikely they would reach even that level in real world chess (say USCF or FIDE). Especially for the simple fact that playing on the "battle field" is much more pressure. However, let's forget about whether or not the games are minor. I would say, no matter how minor the games, there are certain mistakes anyone trying to win would not make if they are a strong player with well-developed understanding. It's like how someone who knows English relatively well might misspell a word such as occurrence with something like "occurence"; however, if someone typed akdhksdhkdhs and meant to type "corndog," I would seriously question their spelling ability, regardless of how little effort they put into typing what they meant. This is a ridiculous example, but it's only used for illustrative purposes. The main point being, if someone has a 1200 chess.com rating after hundreds of games, that reflects something about their ability to understand certain games.
It reflects nothing of your potential, which is the most important in chess. It is his potential, and not his rating, that leads me to believe that the OP will indeed achieve great things. And my chess.com rating is 1770~ while my USCF rating is 1800+, and I know many others who are the same.
1800- 1770 = 30.... there is a huge difference between 30 rating points and 2800-1200= 1600... and potential is not at all quantifiable....
Apr 12, 2018
0
#86
It’s impossible to be “too” much of a good thing. Like, no move can be too positionally sound. But you can have not enough of another positive quality. Sound positioning will open up opportunities for your opponent to error, and you might not have adequate tactical vision to take advantage of opportunities.
chessman1504 wrote:
sadkid2008 wrote:
chessman1504 wrote:
sadkid2008 wrote:
chessman1504 wrote:
sadkid2008 wrote:
The number of comments that attack the poster's rating is really quite shameful. First of all, rating is actually irrelevant in chess; the best player in the world could have never played on chess.com, and could create a new account and start at a modest 1200 -- but he would still be the best player in the world. From his obvious knowledge of chess history, once of the most important aspects of chess, Herceg demonstrates more chess potential than anyone else in this thread. On top of this, his theory that positional knowledge is useless shows that he is willing to bring up deep, radical ideas fearlessly, another quality of someone destined for greatness. Anyone on this thread who mocks him, I want you to know that you are playing a role analogous to that of the religious leaders who wished to silence the claims of those who believed the world was round in ancient times. I wish Herceg luck on his inevitable path as a great chess thinker of the modern world.
Unfortunately, this analogy breaks down when you see how many games he has played. Best player in the world would have a higher rating after playing that number of games. Honestly, the claim that rating is irrelevant is just false in general. What is true is that rating doesn't determine everything. In certain cases the stronger claim is true, such as your example of the best player (ahem Carlsen) joining chess.com, but the reason this is not pertinent is that the best player would easily have a 2800+ rating after hundreds of games. No one is actually attacking him, just claiming that such a rating is reason to reevaluate some things about his/her chess understanding and/or perception of it.
The fact is, reaching a level of chess understanding where one can fruitfully compare the games of Karpov/Fischer/Kasparov (at least on the level the OP wants to discuss) is hard. Really hard, and just knowing chess history/chess games is not sufficient. I know a ton of chess history too, but that doesn't change the fact that I am still a 1500+ player, because I don't actually have well-developed tactical vision, and my positional/strategic understanding is almost nil. I suppose what I'm really saying is, I'm not attacking him anymore than I'm attacking myself(!)
I can see you are a reasonable person; I was referring to others who made clearly degrading comments. Your argument makes sense in theory, but, as Dwight Eisenhower cleverly stated, "All rating systems are arbitrary. The only proof of skill is on the battlefield." This underrated maxim completely undermines your claim that playing more games will show your true skill level in your rating, because, after all, these minor games mean naught when the real battle takes place.
One should be careful to argue a point from vague general principles, or purely from authority, or from "underrated maxims" that are taken purely out of context. These arguments have no substance if not properly executed. Dwight Eisenhower was awesome, and also perfectly capable of being wrong. We must use our own heads here. The claim is that it's reasonable to believe the OP's rating is only low because these are minor games, and that should he be put in a more serious context, then we would really know his true strength. The thing is, I believe this is naive, because playing actual tournament games is much tougher than playing online games. In my (admittedly limited) experience, if one only has a 1200 rating on chess.com, it's unlikely they would reach even that level in real world chess (say USCF or FIDE). Especially for the simple fact that playing on the "battle field" is much more pressure. However, let's forget about whether or not the games are minor. I would say, no matter how minor the games, there are certain mistakes anyone trying to win would not make if they are a strong player with well-developed understanding. It's like how someone who knows English relatively well might misspell a word such as occurrence with something like "occurence"; however, if someone typed akdhksdhkdhs and meant to type "corndog," I would seriously question their spelling ability, regardless of how little effort they put into typing what they meant. This is a ridiculous example, but it's only used for illustrative purposes. The main point being, if someone has a 1200 chess.com rating after hundreds of games, that reflects something about their ability to understand certain games.
It reflects nothing of your potential, which is the most important in chess. It is his potential, and not his rating, that leads me to believe that the OP will indeed achieve great things. And my chess.com rating is 1770~ while my USCF rating is 1800+, and I know many others who are the same.
1800- 1770 = 30.... there is a huge difference between 30 rating points and 2800-1200= 1600... and potential is not at all quantifiable....
Exactly. Potential is not quantifiable. So where are you getting 2800 from and calling it unrealistic?
Smositional wrote:
Smositional and positional chess are not the same.
how so
Apr 19, 2018
0
#90
If there wasn't any difference smositional chess wouldn't exist in the first place. The smositional way of chess is a really narrow path to success. It might be more difficult than the positional way.
I still have to learn a lot.
Smositional wrote:
If there wasn't any difference smositional chess wouldn't exist in the first place. The smositional way of chess is a really narrow path to success. It might be more difficult than the positional way.
I still have to learn a lot.
i see. just kidding, i don't.
Apr 20, 2018
0
#92
sadkid2008 wrote:
Smositional wrote:
If there wasn't any difference smositional chess wouldn't exist in the first place. The smositional way of chess is a really narrow path to success. It might be more difficult than the positional way.
I still have to learn a lot.
i see. just kidding, i don't.
Don't worry. Take your time. We're not in a rush here. Chess Improvement takes time. Don't give up! I wish you all the best!
Smositional wrote:
sadkid2008 wrote:
Smositional wrote:
If there wasn't any difference smositional chess wouldn't exist in the first place. The smositional way of chess is a really narrow path to success. It might be more difficult than the positional way.
I still have to learn a lot.
i see. just kidding, i don't.
Don't worry. Take your time. We're not in a rush here. Chess Improvement takes time. Don't give up! I wish you all the best!
I am not sure where this is coming from, I have said nothing of chess improvement. In fact, chess improvement is the one thing I hope never to obtain. Look at the first principle in my profile and you will see why. Literally anything is more productive than chess.
Apr 20, 2018
0
#94
sadkid2008 wrote:
Smositional wrote:
sadkid2008 wrote:
Smositional wrote:
If there wasn't any difference smositional chess wouldn't exist in the first place. The smositional way of chess is a really narrow path to success. It might be more difficult than the positional way.
I still have to learn a lot.
i see. just kidding, i don't.
Don't worry. Take your time. We're not in a rush here. Chess Improvement takes time. Don't give up! I wish you all the best!
I am not sure where this is coming from, I have said nothing of chess improvement. In fact, chess improvement is the one thing I hope never to obtain. Look at the first principle in my profile and you will see why. Literally anything is more productive than chess.
Smositional chess doesn't require time.
Smositional wrote:
sadkid2008 wrote:
Smositional wrote:
sadkid2008 wrote:
Smositional wrote:
If there wasn't any difference smositional chess wouldn't exist in the first place. The smositional way of chess is a really narrow path to success. It might be more difficult than the positional way.
I still have to learn a lot.
i see. just kidding, i don't.
Don't worry. Take your time. We're not in a rush here. Chess Improvement takes time. Don't give up! I wish you all the best!
I am not sure where this is coming from, I have said nothing of chess improvement. In fact, chess improvement is the one thing I hope never to obtain. Look at the first principle in my profile and you will see why. Literally anything is more productive than chess.
Smositional chess doesn't require time.
On the contrary - it requires massive amounts of spacetime.
Apr 20, 2018
0
#96
catdogorb wrote:
sadkid2008 wrote:
Smositional wrote:
Smositional chess doesn't require time.
On the contrary - it requires massive amounts of spacetime.
I think you mean shamce-shime.
It all makes sense now...
Another highly educational thread derailed by trolls. It's no wonder that true chess enthusiasts have taken their discussions elsewhere.
VladimirHerceg91 wrote:
Another highly educational thread derailed by trolls. It's no wonder that true chess enthusiasts have taken their discussions elsewhere.
I agree, Vladimir. A profound observation.
Apr 23, 2018
0
#99
VladimirHerceg91 wrote:
Another highly educational thread derailed by trolls. It's no wonder that true chess enthusiasts have taken their discussions elsewhere.
Positional Smositional
The number of comments that attack the poster's rating is really quite shameful. First of all, rating is actually irrelevant in chess; the best player in the world could have never played on chess.com, and could create a new account and start at a modest 1200 -- but he would still be the best player in the world. From his obvious knowledge of chess history, once of the most important aspects of chess, Herceg demonstrates more chess potential than anyone else in this thread. On top of this, his theory that positional knowledge is useless shows that he is willing to bring up deep, radical ideas fearlessly, another quality of someone destined for greatness. Anyone on this thread who mocks him, I want you to know that you are playing a role analogous to that of the religious leaders who wished to silence the claims of those who believed the world was round in ancient times. I wish Herceg luck on his inevitable path as a great chess thinker of the modern world.
Unfortunately, this analogy breaks down when you see how many games he has played. Best player in the world would have a higher rating after playing that number of games. Honestly, the claim that rating is irrelevant is just false in general. What is true is that rating doesn't determine everything. In certain cases the stronger claim is true, such as your example of the best player (ahem Carlsen) joining chess.com, but the reason this is not pertinent is that the best player would easily have a 2800+ rating after hundreds of games. No one is actually attacking him, just claiming that such a rating is reason to reevaluate some things about his/her chess understanding and/or perception of it.
The fact is, reaching a level of chess understanding where one can fruitfully compare the games of Karpov/Fischer/Kasparov (at least on the level the OP wants to discuss) is hard. Really hard, and just knowing chess history/chess games is not sufficient. I know a ton of chess history too, but that doesn't change the fact that I am still a 1500+ player, because I don't actually have well-developed tactical vision, and my positional/strategic understanding is almost nil. I suppose what I'm really saying is, I'm not attacking him anymore than I'm attacking myself(!)
I can see you are a reasonable person; I was referring to others who made clearly degrading comments. Your argument makes sense in theory, but, as Dwight Eisenhower cleverly stated, "All rating systems are arbitrary. The only proof of skill is on the battlefield." This underrated maxim completely undermines your claim that playing more games will show your true skill level in your rating, because, after all, these minor games mean naught when the real battle takes place.
One should be careful to argue a point from vague general principles, or purely from authority, or from "underrated maxims" that are taken purely out of context. These arguments have no substance if not properly executed. Dwight Eisenhower was awesome, and also perfectly capable of being wrong. We must use our own heads here. The claim is that it's reasonable to believe the OP's rating is only low because these are minor games, and that should he be put in a more serious context, then we would really know his true strength. The thing is, I believe this is naive, because playing actual tournament games is much tougher than playing online games. In my (admittedly limited) experience, if one only has a 1200 rating on chess.com, it's unlikely they would reach even that level in real world chess (say USCF or FIDE). Especially for the simple fact that playing on the "battle field" is much more pressure. However, let's forget about whether or not the games are minor. I would say, no matter how minor the games, there are certain mistakes anyone trying to win would not make if they are a strong player with well-developed understanding. It's like how someone who knows English relatively well might misspell a word such as occurrence with something like "occurence"; however, if someone typed akdhksdhkdhs and meant to type "corndog," I would seriously question their spelling ability, regardless of how little effort they put into typing what they meant. This is a ridiculous example, but it's only used for illustrative purposes. The main point being, if someone has a 1200 chess.com rating after hundreds of games, that reflects something about their ability to understand certain games.
It reflects nothing of your potential, which is the most important in chess. It is his potential, and not his rating, that leads me to believe that the OP will indeed achieve great things. And my chess.com rating is 1770~ while my USCF rating is 1800+, and I know many others who are the same.