Whoa. That was like... blockbuster movie ending right there.
Just when I'd given up hope, and thought all was lost, Art Fizz comes running down the beach in slow motion*, waving his arms wildly, brandishing what looks like...
... wait, it's some kind of paper..oh! Is it? Is it??
IT IS! AN ARTFIZZ CHART. JUST IN THE NICK OF TIME.
It's a Chess.com miracle!
/Erik bless us, everyone
* in this episode of chess.com, the part of Artfizz will be played by David Hasslehoff
900: This player pretty much a patzer at chess.
1250: This player is pretty much a patzer at chess.
1400: This player is pretty much a patzer at chess.
1650: This player is pretty much a patzer at chess.
1900: This player is pretty much a patzer at chess.
2150: This player is pretty much a patzer at chess.
2400: This player is pretty much a patzer at chess.
2650: This player, whle predominantly a patzer, often plays a nice game.
2900: This player, while usually a patzer, often plays creatively and brilliantly.
3100: This player will be considered a patzer by the next version of the software.
The point? We're all patzers, just on different levels.
i take it you dont like the idea!
I think that rather than characterizing levels, it would be more fitting to come up with a set of characters and come up with a strength characterization based on the number of behaviors/insights you claim as true, kind of like the quizes you commonly find in a women's magazine (e.g. "if you scored 24-25, you are a grandmaster; if you scored 20-23, you are a NM ..."). The reason for this is that I think the best players have filtered out all the mistakes they can and their play resembles that of their peers far more than the play of beginners, who can learn wildly different lessons and wind up with a similar rating. Figuring out how to weigh questions for similar value would be really complicated, though. To make it more objective, maybe instead of questions where you can delude yourself you could base it on puzzles which rather blatently illustrate the points you would make using words ...
It's a start. Some of the factors you identified are fairly simple - both to understand and to measure (although calibrating the measurement levels is not trivial). Take pushes a & h pawns. I guess you mean: single or double a- or -h-pawn move either as the opening move - or within the first five? moves (excluding a threatening or defensive move).
The easiest measure of hung pieces is the number taken by your opponent. But what if your opponent doesn't notice it either?
Missing mate in one is particularly problematical. Unless your opponent points it out to you, you're never going to know that you missed it.
Uncoordinated attacks: This is subjective. My attacks seem coordinated to me; a clearer thinking player would no doubt disagree.
Development is definitely a complex factor. Is it just: not attacking until all of your pieces are in postion? Not attacking until move #8?
One simple factor that is missing is: how many moves do you look ahead?
Cleverly, you have avoided the quagmire of resignation vs. fight to the death (although there is probably a strong correlation between this tendency and rating).
In terms of making an assessment of someone: the suggestion of analysing say 10 of a person's games and measuring these factors could work - though it would be a lot of work (unless automated).
Self-assessment will work better on some factors than others.
Chess Mentor & Tactics Trainer: Do they measure these things already? The obvious way to provide an assessment is to sit a test consisting of playing the next one/two/three moves from a number of chess positions (a bit like the Daily Puzzles). If you miss forks, pins, mates-in-one, your competancy can be accurately assessed.
A promising idea. Is it a self-audit checklist? Is it the basis for a self-improvement plan? Is it a multi-dimensional, human-terms rating? Is it dangerous to reveal your weaknesses (in case your opponent takes advantage of them)?
* in this episode of chess.com, the part of Artfizz will be played by David Hasslehoff
LOL!!!!!
Ratings on Chess.com tend to run around 300 points lower than USCF ratings, and perhaps 200 points lower than FIDE ratings.
Players who can attain and maintain a rating on chess.com of 1950 or higher are approaching master strength, assuming they are not cheating with chess engines.
Usually, ratings should be fairly consistent across the speed of play. Thus quick = blitz = long to a first approximation. If you find a huge differential in long vs blitz or quick, this is something to investigate. For example if a player is 1800 quick, but can't maintian 1650 or higher in longer play, its' a sign of a tendency to be careless.
Now there are special cases of rating differential that are just plain suspicious. If a player has a 1200 rating in quick, but a 1900 rating in long, that smells like engine use.
If that were true, I'd be around a Class A USCF player right now, but I feel more like a Class C player.
I'd think that a 1800 long and 1650 blitz would be careless, not the other way around. In any case, I am probably in that "careless" group, since I do terribly in blitz games.
900: Doesn't protect pieces.
1100: Can protect his pieces.
1300: Has read a book about chess principles. Always captures 'towards the center' never doubles his pawns.
1400: Has become comfortable with a couple openings, can do some basic tactics, blunders less.
1500: Knows all the low-level principles, doesn't understand when they apply, can calculate 3 or 4 move tactics, develops his pieces quickly, is still passive.
1700: Not as passive as the 1500, knows better squares to develop his pieces, can go toe-to-toe with you if necessary in a complicated tactical melee.
1800: Can calculate very slowly about 10 moves ahead in forced variations. Knows his typical plans in all the openings he plays. Often breaks principles like 'capture towards the center', etc. Tactics are sharper and he sees them quickly.
1900: Pieces go to more effective squares earlier. Plays with entire army. Can improvise with any opening.
2000: Has trasncended space and time and ascended to Valhalla.
2100: No longer bound by space and time.
2200: Having dinner parties with Mikhail Tal and Morphy. Occasionally returns to the earth to play some chess, making sure to stay incognito.
2300: This guy's chess pieces stick to you like a robotic arm with a spring. Often after losing to him, his opponents have nightmares and then are reborn.
2400: Can leap across the earth in a single bound. When playing you in a chess game, if you are not giving him a good enough game, he goes back and time and teaches you the right moves. Likes to play ping pong.
2500: Has probably travelled to many parallel dimensions. When you play him in a game of chess he is calculating the implications of it in his home universe of phlegmnom.
2600: Can surf the internet by whistling into a phone.
2700: Masquerades as a common chess player, wandering the earth bringing enlightenment to all. HIs king likes to tour the board.
2800: Likes to play jokes on Rybka and other 'mere machine' chess players.
Sorry I had to extrapolate a bit to understand what the players with higher ratings than mine can do. Thanks.
I just finished reading a book on chess openings by Schiller and I would say I went from a 900 to a 1300 just from that. I have been winning some games finally but I am a patzer for sure. I thought I was good before I went on chess.com but I learned to play when I was about 10 and I haven't played much. I can beat most the adults I play that I know but I live in a place where people would rather play checkers or dominoes. Interesting topic you started here though. I am working on getting better. At first I did not want to read any chess books because I thought it would be boring but I have to say I have learned a couple of things already.
Wow, y'know, for an initially half-baked idea I have to say we got some really cool posts in this thread.
Artfizz, it's so awesome you came through - and all of those developmental ideas are bang on. I'm just idea guy - I cook up some oddball thread and then hand it over to the experts to actually take care of it properly.
And everything Zenchess said from rating 2000 and up is pure internet winnery.
/how many internets does he win?
//ALL OF THEM!
Fun topic again rael. You ARE an idea machine. One thing I would add is my rating rose from the 1300's to my present 1500's when I became able to notice when my opponent made mistakes. Granted they still have to be obvious, but I know thats real criterea for my upward thrust. I think as I get better with understanding strategy(my own) it may bump me to the next ratings level of the 1600's. I dont know if this fits here, but I wanted to contribute.
Nice to see this topic doing so well. When software companies try to have their engines play more "human like" they have to tackle these types of problems. Chessmaster for instance has to figure out how to make a 1200 rated computer player feel like a 1200 rated player.
Nice to see this topic doing so well. When software companies try to have their engines play more "human like" they have to tackle these types of problems. Chessmaster for instance has to figure out how to make a 1200 rated computer player feel like a 1200 rated player.
Lucena hit the nail on the head. It's (relatively) easy to make chess software (chessware?) that plays so well almost nobody can beat it. It's also easy to make chessware that plays so badly that anyone could beat it.
But how do you make chessware that plays "pretty well"? That's the Holy Grail of the chessware world, I do believe.
Interesting indeed!
this is ME:
900:well,actually i played chess for 2 years before going to a tournament so here i was actually pretty good and could smash 1300s.last time i went into a tounament with 989rating and best a 900 then 1200 then 1300 then played the top player in my grade and lost i won a 1250 and lost to a 1350
1176:where I am now,most of the time best 1400s
For thegab03-
I dunno what this has to do with chess, but do you know? Did this poor guy survive? Looks like between the bull and the wall his head came in third.
This is just me describing myself ...
900 - Still learning the basics, didn't really understand the rating system or any of the main concepts of chess. I was quite proud that I knew en passant when none of my friends did and I used it whenever possible. No understanding of positional play and minimal tactical understanding. But hey, I could beat my dad so I HAD to be good :).
1300 - I quickly realize that there are a lot of other kids that can beat their dad too. Meeting up with these much stronger opponents, I begin to notice tactics ... en passant is no longer a novelty :).
1500 - I realize how terrible I actually am. Much effort finally begins to go into deeper tactics, and I very rarely missed a tactic (for or against...) however, I knew very little of openings and often found myself 'losing for no reason' against class A players simply because I didn't understand how midgames take you to the endgame.
1600 - "Oh, that's why I lost" ... My tactical eye, now very well trained has left me making very few mistakes... I begin to develop favourite openings ... my positional understanding grows very quickly.
took me less than 2 months to go from 1500's to ...
1900 - "Oh well that can't be right" ... my intuition (which I still believe I've always had) is now being used for good ... instead of speculative sacrifices I begin to look at my position more critically (and my opponents position more agressively)... becoming accustomed to winning most of my games, I begin to hate losing and start studying more heavily.
Looking back to when I was a 1300 player ... I actually was pretty good... but I always did something that just made no sense ... why... I have no clue.
I will say that the difference between a 1600 and a 1700 player is HUGE from my perspective ... 1600's are still trying weak 'traps' and missing the occasional tactic ... 1700's don't always find the right 'idea' but they always have one and they are very proficient at making it work ...
Basically... the better you get, the more you start to notice the subtle things and with that, your understanding of the game deepens.
From what I've been told, the difference between a 2000 player and a 2200 (NM), is largely openings... a 2000 knows the openings.. a 2200 knows WHY that opening is played... he see's the ideas behind it.
But again... I was only a 2000 player briefly and I"m no 2200 :).
I disagree with the last claim. Maybe it applies on this site (doubtful), but it doesn't in real chess OTB. A 2200 does have better openings than a 2000 a lot of the time, but they're much stronger overall and understand chess much better. The same goes for higher echelons (GM level). In fact openings may be even less the distinguishing feature since all of them have deeply analyzed and well-thought out repertoires.
In my own experience, the rating classes are not so simple since they're only an overall indication of strength. For example an 1800 may have master level opening preparation but only 1600 level tactics. Another 1800 may have absolutely terrible openings but 2000 level tactics. In the end, both balance out to the same rating. However, after a 250+ point difference, the weaker player will be much less skilled in just about every aspect of chess.
For thegab03-
I dunno what this has to do with chess, but do you know? Did this poor guy survive? Looks like between the bull and the wall his head came in third.
That poor guy was not so poor when he was with thousands of others before they started to tourtue the POOR BULL, put it this way, he will definitly think twice before playing the same opening against that poor bull, lol!
Ratings on Chess.com tend to run around 300 points lower than USCF ratings, and perhaps 200 points lower than FIDE ratings.
Players who can attain and maintain a rating on chess.com of 1950 or higher are approaching master strength, assuming they are not cheating with chess engines.
Usually, ratings should be fairly consistent across the speed of play. Thus quick = blitz = long to a first approximation. If you find a huge differential in long vs blitz or quick, this is something to investigate. For example if a player is 1800 quick, but can't maintian 1650 or higher in longer play, its' a sign of a tendency to be careless.
Now there are special cases of rating differential that are just plain suspicious. If a player has a 1200 rating in quick, but a 1900 rating in long, that smells like engine use.
If that were true, I'd be around a Class A USCF player right now, but I feel more like a Class C player.
I'd think that a 1800 long and 1650 blitz would be careless, not the other way around. In any case, I am probably in that "careless" group, since I do terribly in blitz games.
I'm guessing that was a typo. He probably meant higher instead of lower. Otherwise, it certainly wouldn't be consistent with the ratings I've seen. However, any comparrison between online ratings and OTB ratings is bound to be inaccurate and misleading. The only way to know your OTB rating is to play.
Chess Analysis Pro 7 (http://www.chess-analysis.com/chess-software/chess-analysis.html) looks interesting. They have identified a list of factors e.g. (Played Too Fast, Fell To Counter, Missed Opportunity, Poor Central Control, Poor Development) which acts as a checklist. You have to analyse your own games manually, ticking the boxes in their checklist. After a while, a pattern should begin to emerge. As far as I can make out - from this tutorial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEY_lY8YTf8), you have grasp what these factors mean - and recognise when they have occurred - there is no automatic analysis. It sounds like the type of approach that should increase chess awareness.
Don't forget ratings are a measure of consistency not ability. This means that, in any particular game a player may exceed or fall far below his/her actual ability. Sometimes you can get into a position where you feel comfortable and play much better than you usually do, it all depends. As Korchnoi said, "To win, you need a little luck."
good point I never looked at it that way