At what elo are you no longer a bad player? - Chess Forums - Page 10

hikarunaku

Jun 4, 2019

0

#181

@Ziryab You say that you coach people and you also say that you are a terrible chess player.Does that mean you are screwing these people? Or is it because you are relatively much better than them and therefore they find value in learning from you.

If your answer is second one then obviously chess skill is always measured relatively. Stockfish can say that Magnus is a terrible player, just as you can call a 1200 elo player terrible.

nexim

Jun 4, 2019

0

#182

hikarunaku wrote:

@Ziryab You say that you coach people and you also say that you are a terrible chess player.Does that mean you are screwing these people? Or is it because you are relatively much better than them and therefore they find value in learning from you.

Let me guess, on his scale he is terrible, and the people he teaches are even more terrible.

Ziryab's objective scale of chess skill:

Sub 1000: Very very terrible
1000-1200: Almost as terrible as the lower rated players, but not quite very very terrible
1200-1400: Not quite as terrible as the other two categories, but still very terrible
1400-1600: A little less terrible than before, still very terrible
1600-1800: Getting closer to not being very terrible
1800-2000: No longer very terrible, just terrible
2000-2200: Almost no longer terrible
2200-2400: No longer terrible, just bad
2400-2500: Bad, with chances of not being bad
2500-2600: Not too bad
2600-2700: Good
2700-2800: Very good
2800-Magnus: Excellent

Ziryab

Jun 4, 2019

0

#183

You are beginning to get the idea.

Contrast that with the drivel put forth earlier in this thread by a self-proclaimed coach who suggested that players above 1200 have a solid grasp of the basics. Bovine excrement. At 1200, you gotta wonder if they know the rules.

Geez, I still can’t win an elementary ending of queen vs. rook against the engine.

I can checkmate with bishop and knight, but only if I’m sober and have at least five minutes on the clock.

spartakbarnsley

Jun 4, 2019

0

#184

Ziryab wrote:

You are beginning to get the idea.

Contrast that with the drivel put forth earlier in this thread by a self-proclaimed coach who suggested that players above 1200 have a solid grasp of the basics. Bovine excrement. At 1200, you gotta wonder if they know the rules.

Geez, I still can’t win an elementary ending of queen vs. rook against the engine.

I can checkmate with bishop and knight, but only if I’m sober and have at least five minutes on the clock.

Judit Polgar once failed to convert a bishop and knight endgame. Does that make her terrible too?

Ziryab

Jun 4, 2019

0

#185

Any master who fails that endgame needs work. Hence the article spins the failure as embarrassing.

BK201YI

Jun 4, 2019

0

#186

If you're better than more than half of the world's chess players, you're objectively not a bad player. You're at least a mediocre player. I'm not sure what Elo that would be though.

hikarunaku

Jun 4, 2019

0

#187

endgame347 wrote:

hikarunaku wrote:

@Ziryab You say that you coach people and you also say that you are a terrible chess player.Does that mean you are screwing these people? Or is it because you are relatively much better than them and therefore they find value in learning from you.

If your answer is second one then obviously chess skill is always measured relatively. Stockfish can say that Magnus is a terrible player, just as you can call a 1200 elo player terrible.

Serious question, what rating would you is ok ????

Its all relative, for me personally I would have a serious game against anyone above 1300 elo.

Ziryab

Jun 4, 2019

0

#188

hikarunaku wrote:

endgame347 wrote:

hikarunaku wrote:

@Ziryab You say that you coach people and you also say that you are a terrible chess player.Does that mean you are screwing these people? Or is it because you are relatively much better than them and therefore they find value in learning from you.

If your answer is second one then obviously chess skill is always measured relatively. Stockfish can say that Magnus is a terrible player, just as you can call a 1200 elo player terrible.

Serious question, what rating would you is ok ????

Its all relative, for me personally I would have a serious game against anyone above 1300 elo.

When I start thinking that I am good, I lose to 1300s. When I am honest with myself that I am but a weak patzer, 1300s usually make mistakes of the sort that I am capable of exploiting.

funddi

Jun 4, 2019

0

#189

At 1200 elo is when players normally learn their first forcing strategy. Most players at this point begin to see the error in following a memorized opening and begin to lean upon a successful endgame strategy.

asdf12340987

Jun 4, 2019

0

#190

hikarunaku

Jun 4, 2019

0

#191

endgame347 wrote:

hikarunaku wrote:

endgame347 wrote:

hikarunaku wrote:

@Ziryab You say that you coach people and you also say that you are a terrible chess player.Does that mean you are screwing these people? Or is it because you are relatively much better than them and therefore they find value in learning from you.

If your answer is second one then obviously chess skill is always measured relatively. Stockfish can say that Magnus is a terrible player, just as you can call a 1200 elo player terrible.

Serious question, what rating would you is ok ????

Its all relative, for me personally I would have a serious game against anyone above 1300 elo.

Cheers bro- thanks for your time and a fair answer. Respect to you Hik.

You're welcome.

hikarunaku

Jun 4, 2019

0

#192

Ziryab wrote:

hikarunaku wrote:

endgame347 wrote:

hikarunaku wrote:

@Ziryab You say that you coach people and you also say that you are a terrible chess player.Does that mean you are screwing these people? Or is it because you are relatively much better than them and therefore they find value in learning from you.

If your answer is second one then obviously chess skill is always measured relatively. Stockfish can say that Magnus is a terrible player, just as you can call a 1200 elo player terrible.

Serious question, what rating would you is ok ????

Its all relative, for me personally I would have a serious game against anyone above 1300 elo.

When I start thinking that I am good, I lose to 1300s. When I am honest with myself that I am but a weak patzer, 1300s usually make mistakes of the sort that I am capable of exploiting.

Ya! upsets happen quite often especially when a higher rated player disregards the ability of lower rated player.I beat a national master in a miniature who was playing in a daily simul and probably did not take the game too seriously.

SpiritoftheVictory

Jun 4, 2019

0

#193

I'd say if you are 2000 FIDE and that's your floor.

2Late4Work

Jun 5, 2019

0

#194

A 1500-1600 player took down Magnus in a 15 player simultan. That same player sometimes looses to 1100-1300 players. So I would say it's really hard to say.

Pulpofeira

Jun 5, 2019

0

#195

Seriously?!

2Late4Work

Jun 5, 2019

0

#196

Pulpofeira wrote:

Seriously?!

Yes. 21 players, not 15. https://www.pressreader.com/norway/agderposten/20180702/282454234736401

blueemu

Jun 11, 2019

0

#197

Savage47 wrote:

tbh most players below master level can't convert that ending.

Anna Ushinina (Women's World Chess Champion!) failed to convert that K+B+N vs K endgame.

Jeeze... THAT must be embarrassing.

mariners234

Jun 12, 2019

0

#198

Savage47 wrote:

spartakbarnsley wrote:

Ziryab wrote:

I can checkmate with bishop and knight, but only if I’m sober and have at least five minutes on the clock.

tbh most players below master level can't convert that ending. I gave up on learning when I was about 16-1700. I can memorize the moves but it occurs so rarely that I forget when it comes up. Maybe I could learn it now but what's the point? It happens maybe once every couple thousand games and even then you usually have chances to trade into a better ending. I will trade into it if I'm trying to draw though and have yet to lose it.

If you understand the idea you don't have to memorize anything. It's actually pretty easy it's just most books / people who teach it are awful.

spartakbarnsley

Jun 12, 2019

0

#199

pfren wrote:

spartakbarnsley έγραψε:

Ziryab wrote:

You are beginning to get the idea.

Contrast that with the drivel put forth earlier in this thread by a self-proclaimed coach who suggested that players above 1200 have a solid grasp of the basics. Bovine excrement. At 1200, you gotta wonder if they know the rules.

Geez, I still can’t win an elementary ending of queen vs. rook against the engine.

I can checkmate with bishop and knight, but only if I’m sober and have at least five minutes on the clock.

Judit Polgar once failed to convert a bishop and knight endgame. Does that make her terrible too?

She did not- actually she had an easy time checkmating Ljubojevic on that ending, despite it being a blindfold game.

You are probably referring to ex-WC Anna Ushenina.

Check GM Serper's article:

https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-embarrassing-endgame

Yes, I was, and I stand corrected. Thanks.

mariners234

Jun 12, 2019

0

#200

For example, I'll try to make it easy here...

First steps:

1) Put bishop on one of the two 2nd longest diagonals and just leave it there.
2) Bring knight to a central square that is opposite color of the bishop
3) walk king up close to enemy king

Why is the knight on a central square and opposite color? Because it gives you the most flexibility to hop to a square of the same color... and when they're on the same color amazing things happen...

(Picture from wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_and_knight_checkmate#Del%C3%A9tang's_triangle_method)

Ok, so here we go

Now we talk about the bishop's job.

It wants to cage the enemy king on shorter and shorter diagonals, colored green below

.
.
.