2400 range
at what rating do you think "real chess" starts
Sort:
CraigIreland wrote:
What if Chess matches can only ever be decided by "silly" mistakes?
then i would be the worlds luckiest national master but then again that hasn't happened lol
TiltedDonkey wrote:
2000 fide
Stjepan from hanging pawns is 2000 fide and when he plays 15+10 games on lichess some games are decided by silly blunders.
Louutah16 wrote:
Oh good.
Another chess cupcake looking for a pat on the back.
Congrats.
You are so awesome of a player.
Really unbelievable what you have accomplished.
Feel better?
Another chess cupcake looking for a pat on the back.
Congrats.
You are so awesome of a player.
Really unbelievable what you have accomplished.
Feel better?
That's so obviously not the case here. The person is genuinly interested to know at what point silly mistakes are no longer the cause of defeat in chess.
TheNumberTwenty wrote:
by "real chess" I mean chess games that aren't decided by tactical blunders and silly mistakes but rather decided by 2 players executing correct plans and the player who seized a small advantage is the one who wins.
What you're describing is a game between two Grandmasters ...
Jul 30, 2022
0
#27
"Silly" is an adjective defined by the user. what the grandmaster sees as a silly mistake is way different than what i call a silly mistake. this is all really just an assumption being that i am and never will be anywhere close to GM
Alexeivich94 wrote:
mikekalish wrote:
Louutah16 wrote:
Oh good.
Another chess cupcake looking for a pat on the back.
Congrats.
You are so awesome of a player.
Really unbelievable what you have accomplished.
Feel better?
Another chess cupcake looking for a pat on the back.
Congrats.
You are so awesome of a player.
Really unbelievable what you have accomplished.
Feel better?
This sentiment has passed through my mind countless times on this site. Thanks for putting it out there so perfectly.
Does it make you feel bitter when someone better than you mentions their rating?
Of course not. Whether their rating is higher than mine or lower, it seems disingenuous to play several hundred games, earn a rating, and then come here to ask if it's "good". Seems like they're just asking for a compliment or for attention. That's what I thought Louutah16 was saying in his amusing and sarcastic way.
That said, if these are young people, say teens or even younger, then I can kind of understand. It makes sense that young people seek the approval of the older and more experienced. At least that was how it was in the Stone Age when I was young.
mikekalish wrote:
Alexeivich94 wrote:
mikekalish wrote:
Louutah16 wrote:
Oh good.
Another chess cupcake looking for a pat on the back.
Congrats.
You are so awesome of a player.
Really unbelievable what you have accomplished.
Feel better?
Another chess cupcake looking for a pat on the back.
Congrats.
You are so awesome of a player.
Really unbelievable what you have accomplished.
Feel better?
This sentiment has passed through my mind countless times on this site. Thanks for putting it out there so perfectly.
Does it make you feel bitter when someone better than you mentions their rating?
Of course not. Whether their rating is higher than mine or lower, it seems disingenuous to play several hundred games, earn a rating, and then come here to ask if it's "good". Seems like they're just asking for a compliment or for attention. That's what I thought Louutah16 was saying in his amusing and sarcastic way.
That said, if these are young people, say teens or even younger, then I can kind of understand. It makes sense that young people seek the approval of the older and more experienced. At least that was how it was in the Stone Age when I was young.
This obviously doesn't apply for this post. The person who posted this obviously just wants to know at what point real chess starts. You are seeing things that aren't there.
Jul 30, 2022
0
#30
TheNumberTwenty wrote:
by "real chess" I mean chess games that aren't decided by tactical blunders and silly mistakes but rather decided by 2 players executing correct plans and the player who seized a small advantage is the one who wins. I'm 1900 rapid and I still feel like silly mistakes decide most games even in longer time controls...
I'd say probably around 1600-1800 range as that is roughly when I noticed positional knowledge to begin deciding games on a deeper level than simply noticing a potential outpost.
Obviously, chess at lower rating levels than this is still chess - it is just that there is a lot of knowledge (and elements of the game) these players are missing out on simply because neither player is familiar with them.
Note that even at 1600-1800 range (or even 2000+ for that matter), the player doesn't know everything and can still make "wrong" plans (positionally or tactically). Even Grandmasters are always learning, so in another sense "real chess" might also be just a prefabricated descriptor. Chess is chess and the game hasn't been "solved" yet. 
I think if Leela was a person, she would laugh at human chess and it would not consider it "real chess", she would laugh at Kasparov, Carlsen, Karpov, Fisher etc.
dude0812 wrote:
Louutah16 wrote:
Oh good.
Another chess cupcake looking for a pat on the back.
Congrats.
You are so awesome of a player.
Really unbelievable what you have accomplished.
Feel better?
Another chess cupcake looking for a pat on the back.
Congrats.
You are so awesome of a player.
Really unbelievable what you have accomplished.
Feel better?
That's so obviously not the case here. The person is genuinly interested to know at what point silly mistakes are no longer the cause of defeat in chess.
Maybe so....but I wasn't so much criticizing the OP here as supporting Louutah16's comment suggesting that there is a pattern here of players in one way or another calling attention to their own ratings and fishing for compliments. I don't know, or pretend to know, the motivation of any one poster.
CraigIreland wrote:
What if Chess matches can only ever be decided by "silly" mistakes?
Chess can only be decided by mistakes, what one wants to call silly is subjective
Yep, OTB 2000
Jul 31, 2022
0
#36
IronSteam1 wrote:
TheNumberTwenty wrote:
by "real chess" I mean chess games that aren't decided by tactical blunders and silly mistakes but rather decided by 2 players executing correct plans and the player who seized a small advantage is the one who wins.
What you're describing is a game between two Grandmasters ...
Saw a game between a gm and a cgm (correspondence grandmaster, his otb was 1900 though). Cgm was white, gm was black, they played a scheveningen sicilian. White threw his pawns at black like any normal person, but the gm just traded queens and all of a sudden white was dead lost. I found it hilarious.
Jul 31, 2022
0
#37
Naturally what makes it not a "real game" :
a : direct mistakes, tactical mistakes, to miss chessmate
b : playing losing or very disadvantageous positions right out of the opening
c : not being good enough in without Queens positions and endgames
d : not having the technical level to win winning positions against strong players
Otherwise I think that "real game" starts when we playing against an opponent which is more or less of our game strength.
For example in the youtube video Il triche aux échecs...et se piège tout seul (He cheats at chess...and traps himself) we see MI Kevin Terrieux "getting ridiculed" against a strong artificial intelligence. It is not a "real game" not because Kevin Terrieux is a noob or not strong enough but because his opponent is too strong for him.
Jul 31, 2022
0
#38
mikekalish wrote:
Alexeivich94 wrote:
mikekalish wrote:
Louutah16 wrote:
Oh good.
Another chess cupcake looking for a pat on the back.
Congrats.
You are so awesome of a player.
Really unbelievable what you have accomplished.
Feel better?
Another chess cupcake looking for a pat on the back.
Congrats.
You are so awesome of a player.
Really unbelievable what you have accomplished.
Feel better?
This sentiment has passed through my mind countless times on this site. Thanks for putting it out there so perfectly.
Does it make you feel bitter when someone better than you mentions their rating?
Of course not. Whether their rating is higher than mine or lower, it seems disingenuous to play several hundred games, earn a rating, and then come here to ask if it's "good". Seems like they're just asking for a compliment or for attention. That's what I thought Louutah16 was saying in his amusing and sarcastic way.
That said, if these are young people, say teens or even younger, then I can kind of understand. It makes sense that young people seek the approval of the older and more experienced. At least that was how it was in the Stone Age when I was young.
As a “young person” i will happily use this excuse haha
"Chess is a sea in which a gnat may drink and an elephant may bathe!"
(Ancient Indian proverb)
Wherever you are, "real chess" starts 400 points higher than that. If you are 1200, real chess starts at 1600. If you are 1600, it starts at 2000. If you are 2900, it starts at 3300.