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...
A few more "near wins" and you might qualify for a taco trophy.
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...
A few more "near wins" and you might qualify for a taco trophy.
I only had one near win. Keep your insults to yourself, patzer.
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...
A few more "near wins" and you might qualify for a taco trophy.
I only had one near win. Keep your insults to yourself, patzer.
I've heard rumors that you (Yereslov) are *the* beginner troll of chess.com forums?
If so, I'm glad to have you here. You lend credibility to my thread with every post!
He's gotten smarter in a few of his posts, but yes, I have heard those rumors too.
Bah, that's just slander. Just look at the threads Yereslov created, and you will see he is a very humble and polite person, in addition of being very knowledgeable about chess.
yes a 1000 online chess, 1280 standard player; soooo knowledgable on chess indeed
I have easily defeated two 1500's at my club in the past four visits, and I had a draw against a 1670 rated player, with a peak rating of 1815.
I'm sorry, but you are a misinformed troll
I managed to reach move 55 in a drawish endgame against a player near 2000+, so I'm not a patzer.
Comparing online chess to club chess is like comparing copper to diamonds.
Online chess is sit and go. Who cares if you lose? There is always another game.
In a club setting your reputation is on the line. One loss could mean many more losses and a lower rating which you can't reset.
Those who have never been to a chess club will never understand.
Chess would be perfect without ratings. That way we could judge players based on their skill, and not on their reputation.
That is exactly what a chess rating measures. Relative skill, not reputation.
Chess would be perfect without ratings. That way we could judge players based on their skill, and not on their reputation.
That is exactly what a chess rating measures. Relative skill, not reputation.
It does not measure skill. What it measures is performance.
If Billy can pull of a Tal-like performance, but fails the next three months, while his rating drops, is he a weak player?
Some players like Ivanchuk, play amazing chess. but have slumps where they fail time after time.
Do you honestly think Anand's rating is a reflection of his skill? His current rating is 2783, but that does not mean that Kramnik or Carlsen overpower him.
Chess would be perfect without ratings. That way we could judge players based on their skill, and not on their reputation.
Then maybe performance is what you mean to say here as well. My point is simply that this statement suggests that a player rating is based more on their reputation. Than it is on their skill level.
Chess would be perfect without ratings. That way we could judge players based on their skill, and not on their reputation.
Then maybe performance is what you mean to say here as well. My point is simply that this statement suggests that a player rating is based more on their reputation. Than it is on their skill level.
To a degree. A 2700+ rated player is obviously overall better and more consistent than an IM, but if the difference is only 100-200 points, then it becomes less reliable.
I managed to reach move 55 in a drawish endgame against a player near 2000+, so I'm not a patzer.
Nope it's does not change a thing. For example,patzer teams(with horrible record) sometimes beat top elite teams in NBA, but it does change a fact that they are patzer team
I managed to reach move 55 in a drawish endgame against a player near 2000+, so I'm not a patzer.
If you lost it, maybe it was not so drawish after all ?
I could also probably reach move 55 in a 'drawish' position against Anand if such was my aim. (king vs. king+queen is drawish, right ?)
As for "rating do not measure strength, but past performance"... Hum...
So past performance is not a good indicator of strength ? What is then ?
I think Yereslov's previous posts are a good indicator of his future rants.
Yereslov:
I hope you realize that by being <1300, and coming in this thread and arguing with people and then making claims about how chess would be better off without ratings, you are the perfect symbol of irony.
In fact, I should probably go ahead and add "The ratings suck and the rules should be changed" to the list!
Lol at the buttheard >1300's claiming there is no difference between a low 12-Hundred & High 13-Hundred
My experience suggests that those 1400s, 1300s, and 1200s are stronger than the wussy 1500s.
| 1200 | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 1200 | ||||||||
| 1300 | 3 | 3 | 0.0 | 1300 | ||||||||
| 1400 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 31.3 | 1400 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 66.7 | ||
| 1500 | 14 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 50.0 | 1500 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 57.1 | |
| 1600 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 25.0 | 1600 | |||||||
| 1700 | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 1700 | ||||||||
| 31 | 9 | 3 | 19 | 33.9 | 10 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 60.0 |
Yereslov:
I hope you realize that by being
In fact, I should probably go ahead and add "The ratings suck and the rules should be changed" to the list!
I have the right to make an argument without being argued against with an ad hominem.
I never claimed that the rules should be changed, and I never said that chess "should" have no ratings. I claimed that we would be better off using the 17th century chess model.
If ratings were an indication of skill, why does a 1500 lose against a 1045 rated player in 32 moves?
Ratings measure performance. There is no argument there.
I don't find a difference, I play equally badly against both!