Cutoff Rating When No Longer Patzer ?

I said decent. That doesn't mean you don't blunder. It means you have some sort of idea about positional play and you at least know how to evaluate a position.

And... 2400? Really? So the well-respected coach NM Dan Heisman is totally a patzer lol.

krestez if i recall back when someone gave him a difficult endgame position he looked at it and ignored it. i personally thought he was afraid to answer it, because he could go wrong. so yes in my personal opinion he is totally a patzer.

but thats my opinion i might be wrong.

and yes even though i might be wrong, i admit im not god. in germany there is a saying: " a crow doesnt pick at another crow"

so well respected doesnt mean anything. i think maidorf was a well respected person in his comunity too. Well woman who do the oldest job in the world are well respected too when they get old and live with the upper middle class in fancy houses. that doesnt mean anything. everyone who makes money is well respected. money doesnt stink and money has no memory.

that being said, he still could be good. its just my personal opinion

While I have no argument with your assertion regarding Nakamura, I think the thing that needs pointed out is that, it is possible to be a patzer in one form of chess and not in another, regardless of the criteria chosen to determine it. So are you still a patzer either way ?

Now more to the point and more importantly pertaining to your contention, considering blitz is often full of bad moves and they still can work, the same metric couldn't be used. It is an entirely different game from a strategy standpoint. Even the tactics can be different due to the timer. You need nearly an entirely different set of training methods to become elite at it.

To quote a NM who plays here, "blitz isn't chess". If it was, they'd make it the feature of the WCC, instead of the tie breaker. Blitz is people people moving pieces really quickly to beat a timer, better than their opponent, more than strcitly outwitting them.

Standard chess is two people taking the time to think carefully about making good moves to beat one another's thinking ability. This is what made chess what it is to begin with. It was the object or point of it, no other.

To supplant the essence of chess' beauty in favor of a game that uses a lessor quality of thought, for any reason is foolish, but to do it simply to determine a subjective line between who sucks and who doesn't, is assinine.  The timer used in classical games is to keep people honest. With no timer, someone could sit and try to wait out their opponent, hoping they get mad and quit. Considering matches can last 6 or 7 hrs in classically timed games, the intention is that the brain power and chess skill decide the difference, not the timer.

nameno but dont you think. that when players below 2400 dont know comon knowledge. past down through generations, known for hundreds of years, they should be called patzers???

i mean if a sub 2400 doesnt know basic principle even an amateur can know, from reading a book 100 years old, that those people generally should be considered patzers???

Ofc it is true that people can have a to low rating for their knowledge because of concentration or other factors but in general that likelihood is pretty low in my opinion

Anybody who has won at least one rated OTB game against an adult player is no longer a patzer, nor a beginner.

It's very subjective anyway.

I had considered 1800 to 2000 FIDE...it is interesting that we are close.

There is even an ever evolving facet to your contention. Common knowledge is always changing. Old unpopular things are being forgotten and the hypermodern is being changed, as chess theory eveolves. If what was common knowledge to Capablanca, isn't to Carlsen, because the game has changed so much, does it make Capa a patzer ? Please think more thoroughly about this. I am begining to think you are grabbing at straws, desperate to win a debate.

http://www.chess.com/chessopedia/view/patzer

not really, you know what capablanca said on pawn islands??

in the classical era people thought the queens gambit declined exchange variation were better for black, untill they found the miniority attack.

with capablancas knowledge of pawn islands you would have known even before that breakthrough, that white was better if you followed his logic of pawn islands.

also capablancas theorem about the queen and knight still holds true.

And to be honest i saw american fms who didnt seem to know those simple concepts .

but maybe i was wrong, maybe short is right. but then again elo is international, so even an american plus 2000 should actually have the same quality as an european plus 2000.

It wasnt just one example, you see it pretty often.

really Capablanca was a genius, you cant overestimate how much worth his knowledge has. Its really unfathomable how smart that guy was and what universal knowledge he had.

you should have better picked steinitz as example.

and yes i know short said: people are too much focused on pawn structure, but short also has dynamic compensation, what many pre 2400 players didnt seem to have.

ofc im no way too judge, but it really really looked a lot like it.

and yes i know capablanca probably also fell in the classical era but it was just one example.

I even considered Morphy, but the fact remains...

nameno no the facts dont remain, ims and gms still use and teach capablancas theories. thats probably one ofthe reason  they are no patzers and sub 2400 are patzers....

to a GM they are but the are chess gods compared to you... and yes, even Capablanca, though he was instrumental in the discovery of a few examples of chess theory still used today, you argue all you like, but the game isn't the same...

i never said that chess didnt change. ofc compared to me they are chess gods, but to me every idiot can be a chess god. thats not so special compared to me because i know nothing..

thats also a wrong way of looking it, if you have to use something low as me to compare against, the object of comparison must suck a lot.

so totally agree with me that people under 2400 are patzers.

nameno really if you have to compare to me than it just proves how bad they are. great things you measure against greatness. low things you measure against low things like me....

that proves my point!!!

You have attempted to twist my words into the exact opposite of what I just said. I was comparing everyone else to GM's to begin with and I compared the cutting edge theory of today, to that of yesterday... really dude piss off already, you already lost this argument.... trying to emulate bugs bunny tricking daffy duck into saying it's duck season against me aint gonna work...

did you post twice that a sub 2400 player is a chess god compared to me??

did you or didnt you?? I mean im just sayin if a lousy player like me who doesn know anything about chess is needed to make a sub 2400 player look good, do you think that is a good sign??

GrandPatzer!!