OP why are you so angry?
It's his small...well, you know. Let us never speak of this again.
big/small, it's not like any of your virgin chess players would use your male reproductive organs anyways so I dont see why the constant arguing about size
Kasparov_Jr you are so wise and mature.
big/small, it's not like any of your virgin chess players would use your male reproductive organs anyways so I dont see why the constant arguing about size
Ahhh...the "well, you're probably a virgin" comeback. Classic and not often used past high school. Well played.
P.S. scktrash seems to really like you. Who would have thought? I would hurry and get his number before he's banned again.
I_Am_Second hat geschrieben:
ch3sstroll3r wrote:
Bullet for me is not chess and blitz is not serious chess.
If youre someone that is very good at it, like Nakamura, etc. then it is exciting to watch. But for the average player...I agree with you. Being down 9 pieces, and winning on time, and bragging you won?
Lol its impossible to be 9 pieces down, there are only 8 on the board for each side and one is the king ;D
I_Am_Second hat geschrieben:
ch3sstroll3r wrote:
Bullet for me is not chess and blitz is not serious chess.
If youre someone that is very good at it, like Nakamura, etc. then it is exciting to watch. But for the average player...I agree with you. Being down 9 pieces, and winning on time, and bragging you won?
Lol its impossible to be 9 pieces down, there are only 8 on the board for each side and one is the king ;D
It is possible to be nine pieces down!
If your only have your king and some pawns. And your opponent has all of his pieces and promotes two of his pawns. Then you are 9 pieces down.
Blitz and bullet do not matter. Internet chess does not matter, either.
Ratings, like gold, can't go with you when you die.
Not sure where the tipping point is age wise in relation to bullet/blitz:online. I would say most folks below the age of 30 should have higher speed chess than turn based ratings. If you are aged say 20 and are much higher at turn based then maybe take up another hobby. Anyone 50+ still having a better speed chess rating than long play then my congratulations to you.
lol, this old topic.
None of your ratings on an internet chess server matters one bit. Any serious chess player knows this. So just relax, play the variant you prefer and have fun.
So, you're saying if someone has say a rating of 2078 in blitz at Chess.com, then when they play OTB, it means nothing?
I would think that such a person would give any strong club player a good challenge.
I see nothing wrong with that (correspondence chess ratings valued as much as the other categories)
I think it's awesome actually to look at these games. You have to think that the players involved put maybe hours into one move, and sometimes it has an amazing effect different from blitz just now looking at the games where players "refrain" from capturing or taking a piece in a situation that would be completely natural in a faster game.
I see all 4 of the regular chess categories including correspondence to be equally interesting/ important. Chess 960 I think would be equal to all these other as well. It teaches you how to break the mold of your way of looking at the board and the pieces without pre-constructed judgement, but I think "regular" chess should always be first because it was the game from which 960 was derived, and it is the most historically accurate.
The time intervals dictate different resources being used to win the game, and all represent a different side of chess.
lol, this old topic.
None of your ratings on an internet chess server matters one bit. Any serious chess player knows this. So just relax, play the variant you prefer and have fun.
So, you're saying if someone has say a rating of 2078 in blitz at Chess.com, then when they play OTB, it means nothing?
I would think that such a person would give any strong club player a good challenge.
This may well be true, but it's a bit like saying that because you have a blog, you could be a successful author or journalist.
Not sure you can compare strong club players to successful author or journalist. Seems some type of master rating would be the equivelant.
My point is that online ratings don't 'mean nothing'. It does show some skill. OTB Players may down play it. But if they play someone who has a Live Chess rating of 2000, and that person plays 30 or 45 minute games online, then there is a good chance they are going to do quite well against strong club players.
If you're rated highly in blitz and quick (like G/30 games) then you're going to do very well at a club... but that doesn't mean you'll do just as well at a tournament. All the time at clubs I'll consistently outplay people who are better tournament players. And if I played them in a tournament setting they'd be favored.
Speed play certainly shows some knowledge, pattern recognition and definitely tactical skill. Tournament play has a few different qualities though. Analysis is a big one you don't really exercise in speed play. And certain practical decisions ranging from time management to which round you'll take a bye.
All online ratings don't mean sh*t!
There are too many factors that alter online ratings that make them completely unreliable:
All online ratings - bullet, blitz, bughouse, standard, correspondence, you name it, don't mean sh*t!
Oh yeah, I'm certain someone who only plays blitz or bullet, without a solid normal time experience would most likely not do well at a tournament.
All online ratings don't mean sh*t!
There are too many factors that alter online ratings that make them completely unreliable:
Connection issues - lose connection, lose the game, and it's all because of some drunk on the road in your neighborhood hitting a power pole with a blood/alcohol level of .15. Unrealistic clock scenarios - You have 1 minute left, I have 45 seconds, and it's a dead drawn Rook and Pawn versus Rook and Pawn, and you go around playing like a retarded jerk not accepting draws so you can race him out of time. In any realistic game, the delay or increment, or for those with really old analog clocks, the insufficient losing chances rule, would result in a draw rather than a bullsh*t loss Attention Span - the vast majority of players that exclusively play internet blitz are those that literally have the attention span of a flea, or if they are lucky, maybe a 2-year old. You've shown no chess skill what-so-ever by beating someone in a blitz game. Try sitting there for 6 hours and grinding it out! Then come see me and try to tell me you have skillz! Opponent Situation - I only play online Blitz if I am trying to wind down for the day, or have 10 minutes to kill with nothing to do and just looking to kill the time. My 1756 blitz rating here means nothing at all. You give me someone with an over the board rating of 1756 and this 2155 player will annihilate them 9 times out of every 10! (And probably just plain beat them the 10th time)All online ratings - bullet, blitz, bughouse, standard, correspondence, you name it, don't mean sh*t!
So, you're saying if you sat down to a board with someone with a Live Chess rating of 2000, and the player only played 30 and 45 minute games, you would play as if they were a beginner? Or at least someone who does not deserve a little respect OTB?
Kleelof is like Einstein on steroids.
Oh yeah, I'm certain someone who only plays blitz or bullet, without a solid normal time experience would most likely not do well at a tournament.
It's just that it's sort of a handicap for these tournament players who don't play blitz much. Evaluations are very different I think. They play you in blitz and they can't help but reject lines of play they know aren't very good... as if you'll have 4 hours to try and refute it, even if the unbalanced type of play or brief initiative is exactly what they need to win in that 5 minute game.
I'm tired of people bragging about having '' high '' correspondence chess ratings, yet see thier blitz rating be a measily 1200. Having a 1800+ bullet/blitz rating is more respectable than being a 2000 in Correspondence chess
I'm rating 1850 uscf rating in chess, and my bullet/blitz rating accurately describes it. Correspondence chess is extremely unrealistically long, what tournament in the world will you have more than 2 weeks for a game? If your good at chess, the moves will come to you quick, you dont need 24 hours to analyze.
and it's so easy to cheat in correspodence chess every once in a while, you can look at a chess engince for a couple of moves & it will go unnoticed. But you dont have time to fool around with blitz/bullet.
I agree with you in the sense that I would take an 1800+ blitz player more seriously than an 1800+ correspondence player. It is easier to cheat as well, but if both sides play with integrity then correspondence chess can be alot of fun and can result in a high quality game. I disagree with you completely with bullet though. I play it, and its fun no question. But its not representative of good chess. Too many games simply end because of time due to making mindless premoves and people with winning positions just end up losing or blundering. I get it that time everything in bullet so I'm not knocking it. I'm simply saying that to say a high bullet rating is more admirable than a high correspondence rating isn't accurate.
OP why are you so angry?
It's his small...well, you know. Let us never speak of this again.