Nemo96 wrote:
I don't want to be a patzer
Regardless of rating, you will always be a patzer to someone iwth a higher rating.
At what rating am I not a patzer?
Sort:
Nemo96 wrote:
Sandrasandrita wrote:
Probably you aren't. But why so much worries about rating?
It means everything
A rating is a number, it doesnt mean anything.
cornbeefhashvili wrote:
Nemo96 wrote:
I don't want to be a patzer
If you are anything other than World Champion, you are patzer. Live with it.
To Fritz, carlsen is a patzer
3000.
I_Am_Second wrote:
Nemo96 wrote:
Sandrasandrita wrote:
Probably you aren't. But why so much worries about rating?
It means everything
A rating is a number, it doesnt mean anything.
Yes, but this number lines up with your results, which can be better or worse than the results of others. It's as meaningful as any word in any language -- we have words, and when we see them we know what it's referring to and so we think of that idea.
Elubas wrote:
I_Am_Second wrote:
Nemo96 wrote:
Sandrasandrita wrote:
Probably you aren't. But why so much worries about rating?
It means everything
A rating is a number, it doesnt mean anything.
Yes, but this number lines up with your results, which can be better or worse than the results of others. It's as meaningful as any word in any language -- we have words, and when we see them we know what it's referring to and so we think of that idea.
The meaning words have are based on the context we use them in. Same for ratings. To me its a number, to others it means the world.
To be honest, I still respect lower rated players quite a bit. I'm 2000, and although I could no doubt beat a 1400 easily, I still think overall they are quite good. The kind of stuff you have to do to go through beginner to 1400... that itself is a cool journey. Even from beginner to 1200 -- I think you have to be well acquainted with the game to play that way, considering how random beginner chess looks. You don't play like 1200 your first game, you just don't.
In other words I don't have to have a close match with someone to be impressed with their skill. It's a hard game, and there are many levels that are just way beyond the average casual chess player -- that represents a lot of learning.
Elubas wrote:
To be honest, I still respect lower rated players quite a bit. I'm 2000, and although I could no doubt beat a 1400 easily, I still think overall they are quite good. The kind of stuff you have to do to go through beginner to 1400... that itself is a cool journey. Even from beginner to 1200 -- I think you have to be well acquainted with the game to play that way, considering how random beginner chess looks.
In other words I don't have to have a close match with someone to be impressed with their skill. It's a hard game, and there are many levels that are just way beyond the average casual chess player -- that represents a lot of learning.
I know that 1400 player today than a 1400 player 20 or even 10 years ago. I also think lower rated player enjoy the game more. I guess that goes with the territory, as you improe the game becomes more work, and less fun.
"I know that 1400 player today than a 1400 player 20 or even 10 years ago."
Can you explain what you mean?
2400 IMO.
nobodyreally wrote:
kleelof wrote:
nobodyreally wrote:
kleelof wrote:
According to Google, a Patzer is a 'poor chess player'.
That makes me a patzer because I've been poor all my life.
It comes from the german verb patzen (to blunder)
Yea. Leave it up to the Dutch to quote German and miss the joke.
Is that a joke? Really? I thought it was a statement.
Okie. I'll give you that one. I AM of Dutch/German descent.
Needless to say, my jokes often fail.
MrDamonSmith wrote:
"I know that 1400 player today than a 1400 player 20 or even 10 years ago."
Can you explain what you mean?
Sorry...I meant to say that I know a 1400 player today is stronger than a 1400 player 20 or even 10 years ago.
LongIslandMark wrote:
For folks like me it was when I stopped losing most of my games by dropping pieces.
I think most reasonable people(Yes, I know I am using the word 'reasonable' with a group of chess players) would consider this one of the basic differentiations between patzer and non-patzer.
I think if someone genuinely tries to improve their skills and moves past the point of things like 'hope chess' and making moves because they 'look good', I would no longer call them a patzer.
Of course, this definition perfectly describes me.
Stephenson2 wrote:
80% of the games I play are above my rating. average 200-300 points higher currently I am about 1100 but best win about 1750-2000. Rating are just numbers if you are concearned about youre number I would crush you Patzer.
Good habit!
When I play someone, their Avg. opponent rating means more to me than their listed rating.
If focused on rating will always be a patzer.
Learn instead to play good chess.
I_Am_Second wrote:
MrDamonSmith wrote:
"I know that 1400 player today than a 1400 player 20 or even 10 years ago."
Can you explain what you mean?
Sorry...I meant to say that I know a 1400 player today is stronger than a 1400 player 20 or even 10 years ago.
I agree. I've thought that exact thing for years, at least 10 (I've thought it for 10 years), but kept it to myself.
Nemo96 wrote:
So?
I don't want to be a patzer
I_Am_Second wrote:
I know a 1400 player today is stronger than a 1400 player 20 or even 10 years ago. I also think lower rated player enjoy the game more. I guess that goes with the territory, as you improe the game becomes more work, and less fun.
Might be an interesting topic to start. "Do lower rated players enjoy the game more?"
I think the game changes so much it's almost like asking which people enjoy playing more, football or basketball?
According to Google, a Patzer is a 'poor chess player'.
That makes me a patzer because I've been poor all my life.
It comes from the german verb patzen (to blunder)
Yea. Leave it up to the Dutch to quote German and miss the joke.
Is that a joke? Really? I thought it was a statement.