And they ain't making us no sandwiches either! 
Any good players here?
Sort:
Tank_Murdoch wrote:
Oh great, women chess players giving advice... The only reason they're here is they ain't getting nothing at home.
But it looks the woman who commented (LisaV) has a higher rating than you 
. Maybe you should make her a sandwich. And you can you can put some of your smear on the sandwiches from those bad players you have been crushing 
.
Crushing 1600s isn't exactly a high and mighty achievement. Take down some 2000+ rated players here and maybe you could start saying that the site has no good players.
ReasonableDoubt wrote:
Tank_Murdoch wrote:
Oh great, women chess players giving advice... The only reason they're here is they ain't getting nothing at home.
Although OP is a troll, and an obvious one, I somewhat agree with his original post that chess.com is incredibly weak comparative to other places to play on the internet. A 1000 OTB can have a 1700 rating here without breaking a sweat, as the ratings are wildly inflated. With that in mind, I think it actually helps chess.com because people like to be able to strut and puff out their chests thinking that their heavily inflated number means something. There are some strong players on chess.com, but the pool in general is arguably the weakest on the whole internet in terms of average playing strength. I'm not trolling with this post, despite the angry comments I'll undoubtedly receive from people who claim their ratings translate at a rate of anything better than -400 points to OTB. With that being said, the pool gets less inflated as you get higher up in Correspondence, and 23-400 site is only about 300 points inflated (2000-2100 OTB = 2300-2400 site) which is not much for chess.com. Above that is basically centaur territory, though. A rough chart for people who are wondering (obviously there are exceptions, but generally speaking I've seen this to be fairly accurate):
800> OTB = varies
800-1000 OTB = 13-1500 chess.com
1000-1200 OTB = 1500-1650 chess.com
1200-1400 OTB = 1650-1800 chess.com
1400-1600 OTB = 1800-1950 chess.com
1600-1800 OTB = 1950-2100 chess.com
1800-2000 OTB = 2100-2200 chess.com
2000-2200 OTB = varies, but usually around 2200-2500 chess.com
For the most part, Teary agrees with the end part of the list, but dissagrees with the first few.
Teary has played plenty of OTB tournaments, and he knows what an U1000 and an U1200 play like. The 1000-1200 USCF rated players are roughly equivalent to the 1300-1500 rated players here on chess.com (just going from experience). But a 1000 rated USCF player playing like one of the 1700+ rated players here? No way.
Usually when that kind of huge gap emerges, the rating is farther off on the real life side than it is on the chess.com side. Just take the OP for example: he certainly doesn't play like an U1000 USCF just from looking at his games, because he demonstrates quite a bit of opening familiarity (a Caro-Kann defense for an U1000? Really?), and a decent amount of tactical knowledge. Teary would guess that he'd play about like a 1200-1400 USCF player if given longer time controls, and that would match well with the kinds of opponents he has been playing here (about 200-300 points higher).
Tank_Murdoch wrote:
Oh great, women chess players giving advice... The only reason they're here is they ain't getting nothing at home.
Is your wife here?
Correspondence ratings always have the potential to be inflated over OTB ratings because a weak player has the option to take the game *very* seriously. Somebody who takes a lot of care in their correspondence games will beat somebody far higher rated (in OTB chess) who doesn't take the same amount of care.
gzthompson wrote:
Correspondence ratings always have the potential to be inflated over OTB ratings because a weak player has the option to take the game *very* seriously. Somebody who takes a lot of care in their correspondence games will beat somebody far higher rated (in OTB chess) who doesn't take the same amount of care.
The term inflation is used to describe a rating increase of all players in a single pool of players. Ratings cannot be inflated when compared to another pool of players and even more so when you try to compare to a different game.
Play on chesscube. You can find tough players there, but I will play a game with you if you are so high a mighty.
You know what, i change my mind, I don't see why i should play against someone who lies about their age.... Like come on, you were born on New Year's in the 1950's...... Wow. Just play against the Impossible-Computer if you think you are so good.
Pretty good game I have to admit, long though. These unknown players played well.
I met Ehsan one day and aksed him for a friendly game of chess, he accepted and each move he made was.... outstanding!
Hey Teary Eyed Punk -
Too bad you can't mouth off to me to my face. Looks like you're a smart-alec. Guys like you always run their mouth on the internet cause in person they're punks like you. Keep it up pal, I got your number.
Tank
RobKing wrote:
I suck at this game .I think I should quit, what do you think?
2334... no way you will ever really get any rating of satisfaction. just give up now :P
Tank_Murdoch wrote:
Hey Teary Eyed Punk -
Too bad you can't mouth off to me to my face. Looks like you're a smart-alec. Guys like you always run their mouth on the internet cause in person they're punks like you. Keep it up pal, I got your number.
Tank
LOL
What a maroon!
Oh great, women chess players giving advice... The only reason they're here is they ain't getting nothing at home.