The goal of the game is to kill the king, not to practice polygamy.
Common <1300 Profound Insights
Sort:
billyblatt wrote:
GambitExtraordinaire wrote:
Thank you LongIslandMark. I appreciate your support and I want to reiterate that my intention was not to come down on lower rated players like yourself.
That was the funniest by far!!! lol hahahahhhaaaaaaa
:P I didn't mean it like that.
mendez1996 wrote:
Ive never been below a 1300 in my life , im serious
my first tournament of my life when I was in Kinder I beat a 1000, and finished 3/5 which turned my rating to a 1400.......lowest I have ever been is 1385, so how does it feel to be <1300?
Except if you played your first tournament just after learning the rules (which in France we call "throwing money out of the windows"), and scored remarkably well in that case, you have probably been under 1300 at some point. You just were not rated at that point, but you played like a <1300.
mendez1996 wrote:
Ive never been below a 1300 in my life , im serious
my first tournament of my life when I was in Kinder I beat a 1000, and finished 3/5 which turned my rating to a 1400.......lowest I have ever been is 1385, so how does it feel to be <1300?
If you guys are both 12 year olds, then by all means keep going. But if you're adults, then please slap yourselves and stop already. Just my two cents, 1385 is basically the same as 1300 -- not really a strong insult to tease someone for being <1300 when you're 1385!
Frankly, I started when I was a kid, but I took something like 3 or 4 years to become what I would estimate a 1300 now.
So I do not think the average adult that just started chess has that rating.
(of course, I'm maybe just an idiot, but I don't like to examine that hypothesis)
mendez1996 wrote:
Ive never been below a 1300 in my life , im serious
my first tournament of my life when I was in Kinder I beat a 1000, and finished 3/5 which turned my rating to a 1400.......lowest I have ever been is 1385, so how does it feel to be <1300?
And yet, ironically, it is more towards people like you that my thread is aimed at. I don't see the context of this argument, but regardless I just arbitrarily picked "1300" because it seemed that's what most of the trolls were rated. It's not like 1300 is the cutoff for being bad or good at chess..
I honestly don't see much difference, and I don't believe any 1800+ player will either.
mendez1996 wrote:
Irontiger wrote:
mendez1996 wrote:
Ive never been below a 1300 in my life , im serious
my first tournament of my life when I was in Kinder I beat a 1000, and finished 3/5 which turned my rating to a 1400.......lowest I have ever been is 1385, so how does it feel to be <1300?
Except if you played your first tournament just after learning the rules (which in France we call "throwing money out of the windows"), and scored remarkably well in that case, you have probably been under 1300 at some point. You just were not rated at that point, but you played like a <1300.
nope, my uscf tournamenet history list shows I literally have never been below a 1385 which is my lowest ever rating.
my first tourney I went from unrated to 1400 then it lowered to 1385 later but it never got any lower
Moronic.
mendez1996 wrote:
GambitExtraordinaire wrote:
mendez1996 wrote:
Ive never been below a 1300 in my life , im serious
my first tournament of my life when I was in Kinder I beat a 1000, and finished 3/5 which turned my rating to a 1400.......lowest I have ever been is 1385, so how does it feel to be <1300?
And yet, ironically, it is more towards people like you that my thread is aimed at. I don't see the context of this argument, but regardless I just arbitrarily picked "1300" because it seemed that's what most of the trolls were rated. It's not like 1300 is the cutoff for being bad or good at chess..
Pretty much divides those who are mediocre from those who are somewhat decent in chess. If I am paired up with a 1225 at a tournament, I would most likely feel like this will be an easy win, while if I am paired up with a 1385, I know it might be somewhat challenging.
This is arrogance.. Who are you to say whether a 1300 player is substantially more challenging than a 1200?
Right now I know several 1200s (OTB USCF) who are rapidly improving and are far more dangerous than their 1400 or even 1500 counterparts who have been stuck at the same rating for years.
I just think chess is too complicated of a game to define classes of players at certain ratings like 1300.
Wow, for what started out as a funny thread, this thing sure has gotten serious. Relax and chill out. It's just chess.
SlimReaper99 wrote:
Wow, for what started out as a funny thread, this thing sure has gotten serious. Relax and chill out. It's just chess.
Hmm, I just read some recent posts and you do have a point. I was trying to defend players like you :P but it may have gotten a bit out of hand.
Anyways, another one I saw
"Chess is nothing without computers"
Players like me?????? I'm way over 1300, almost 40 points over! ;-)
Although I'll probably lose my next 12 games and be back under 1200 in no time. It's how I roll.
Apr 21, 2013
0
#74
Mendez, as GE pointed out, the thread wasn't about weak players, but trolls.
Apr 21, 2013
0
#75
The inane questions that are seen also suggests a implicit lack of understanding of how insanely exponential the quantity of knowledge + patterns accumulated vs. every 100 points you climb up the ratings ladder is.
Another missing piece is that stronger players "just happen" to have better levels of mental discipline (self-correction/learning from losses, performing deliberate practice etc.) They didn't pick that up in a book or a troll-infested forum!
There is no advice on any fricking forum is EVER going to substitute for that ... that is exclusively a "you" problem but most people want the quick and easy fix and hope there' s some wisdom to to be googled or "forum'ed" :)
When I visited my first chess club and played a casual game vs. my first Master level opponent, I just thought he was a Master because he spotted Knight forks better than I did. We all start somewhere!
Apr 21, 2013
0
#76
GambitExtraordinaire wrote:
billyblatt wrote:
GambitExtraordinaire wrote:
Thank you LongIslandMark. I appreciate your support and I want to reiterate that my intention was not to come down on lower rated players like yourself.
That was the funniest by far!!! lol hahahahhhaaaaaaa
:P I didn't mean it like that.
Of course not. Mocking and looking down on those who are inferior to you whether physically, intellectually, or monetarily was never your intention. You mean well.
Keep up the good work you are doing here. All the best.
Apr 22, 2013
0
#77
LongIslandMark wrote:
The post in question doesn't show "lower" any different to me, so maybe just something funny with your browsers or whatever you're posting from. You guys aren't stll using Microsoft are you?
In any case, I would not have taken any offense. You could tell by the tone of the rest of it.
Sorry it is just the self-congratulatory tone of the whole post was just getting to me...
In the past four days of OTB chess I have drawn against a 1670, and beaten two fiften hundreds. I had a draw at move forty against a 1900 but somehow managed to miss the winning move in the endgame.
But then again, my opponent was an old men...
Shivsky wrote:
The inane questions that are seen also suggests a implicit lack of understanding of how insanely exponential the quantity of knowledge + patterns accumulated vs. every 100 points you climb up the ratings ladder is.
Another missing piece is that stronger players "just happen" to have better levels of mental discipline (self-correction/learning from losses, performing deliberate practice etc.) They didn't pick that up in a book or a troll-infested forum!
There is no advice on any fricking forum is EVER going to substitute for that ... that is exclusively a "you" problem but most people want the quick and easy fix and hope there' s some wisdom to to be googled or "forum'ed" :)
When I visited my first chess club and played a casual game vs. my first Master level opponent, I just thought he was a Master because he spotted Knight forks better than I did. We all start somewhere!
I think that's the biggest problem among otherwise well-intentioned trolls. They treat chess like they do everything else in their life, and look for the shortest quickest way to success.
Which brings me to another one:
"How long does it take to become a GM? I'm 14 now, and a 300, and I think within a few months of hard practice and tactics training I should be at least 2200 what do you guys think?{"
Apr 22, 2013
0
#80
GambitExtraordinaire wrote:
I think that's the biggest problem among otherwise well-intentioned trolls. They treat chess like they do everything else in their life, and look for the shortest quickest way to success.
Which brings me to another one:
"How long does it take to become a GM? I'm 14 now, and a 300, and I think within a few months of hard practice and tactics training I should be at least 2200 what do you guys think?{"
lol funny stuff. 'It shouldn't be called ovaltine, it should be called round tin!'. pure gold!! lol!
Well the rules DO need to change, because the draw rule is unfair when I can't checkamte with 3 queens. :)