Forums

Cutoff Rating When No Longer Patzer ?

Sort:
Avatar of TetsuoShima
TetsuoShima
Sep 17, 2013
0
#141

ok forget it, you win. every 2200 patzer is now not a patzer anymore. I get it. we can all agree they are non patzers.

Avatar of Ranx0r0x
Ranx0r0x
Sep 26, 2013
0
#142
LongIslandMark wrote:

Depends on how you define "patzer". There are acknowledged levels below master in some of the systems, as I understand it. "Patzer" to some folks might just mean anyone who is not a challenge to them.

At a minimum, I think it's just someone who has learned to stop leaving pieces hanging, not step into mate, notices mates-in-two, doesn't go for the "bait" left hanging on purpose, etc. In other words, someone you actually have to play chess against as opposed to trying to fool them with cheap tricks and traps.

That's probably a good definition really.  It isn't so much about being master as about not fumble and botching it at the board.  I don't recall who it was that said, "I want you to be good enough so that I can beat you."  A patzer is someone who isn't good enough to enjoy beating.

Avatar of DrCheckevertim
DrCheckevertim
Sep 27, 2013
0
#143

So.... somewhere between 1600-1800

Avatar of nameno1had
nameno1had
Sep 27, 2013
0
#144

FIDE ? I would say 1800-2000 FIDE

Avatar of Oscar_the_Cat
Oscar_the_Cat
Sep 27, 2013
0
#145

Whatever, lady.  Personally if I were rated 900 and you said this I would be offended.  Its stupid and insulting that just because one is not good at chess that they cant work out a problem in their head in a chess game. which is most certainly and undeniably part of what chess is in total.

 

Frankly, I think you should apologize to every one below 1200.  

 

Go on.  

Avatar of Oscar_the_Cat
Oscar_the_Cat
Sep 27, 2013
0
#146

APOLOGIZE TO THEM, PLEASE.  

Avatar of nameno1had
nameno1had
Sep 27, 2013
0
#147

ladies first it is...sorry...I am a guy

Avatar of TetsuoShima
TetsuoShima
Sep 28, 2013
0
#148
Oscar_the_Cat wrote:

Whatever, lady.  Personally if I were rated 900 and you said this I would be offended.  Its stupid and insulting that just because one is not good at chess that they cant work out a problem in their head in a chess game. which is most certainly and undeniably part of what chess is in total.

 

Frankly, I think you should apologize to every one below 1200.  

 

Go on.  


i think that makes no sense at all, ofc a 900 player cant solve hard problems.

Avatar of PhoenixTTD
PhoenixTTD
Sep 28, 2013
0
#149

Patzers are people who play fast free games online and good players play OTB and make money doing so.

Avatar of Oscar_the_Cat
Oscar_the_Cat
Sep 28, 2013
0
#150
PhoenixTTD wrote:

Patzers are people who play fast free games online and good players play OTB and make money doing so.

 

 

 

They can if they put their mind to it.  You're a horrible person. 

 

 

Hey op, apologize low rated chess players please.  

Avatar of PhoenixTTD
PhoenixTTD
Sep 28, 2013
0
#151

^Oscar your post makes no sense.

Avatar of Oscar_the_Cat
Oscar_the_Cat
Sep 28, 2013
0
#152

Wut you say bish

Avatar of PhoenixTTD
PhoenixTTD
Sep 28, 2013
0
#153

Who can do what if they put their minds to it?  Your post does not make sense.

Avatar of Radical_Drift
Radical_Drift
Sep 28, 2013
0
#154
Slovensik wrote:

Hey phoenix, complete idiots are people who spend 100 dollars on a chess site when they aren't any good in the first place.  Especially since there are places out there where you can do free tactics all day long and get free opening books online... Dumbshit.

Well that escalated quickly.

Avatar of Radical_Drift
Radical_Drift
Sep 28, 2013
0
#155
PhoenixTTD wrote:

Who can do what if they put their minds to it?  Your post does not make sense.

You'll have to excuse him. He's a cat with bad English.

Avatar of Radical_Drift
Radical_Drift
Sep 28, 2013
0
#156
Rachellybean wrote:
Slovensik wrote:

Hey phoenix, complete idiots are people who spend 100 dollars on a chess site when they aren't any good in the first place.  Especially since there are places out there where you can do free tactics all day long and get free opening books online... Dumbshit.

pleasedontbemad

I'd hazard a guess that that ship has sailed.

Avatar of PhoenixTTD
PhoenixTTD
Sep 28, 2013
0
#157
Slovensik wrote:

Hey phoenix, complete idiots are people who spend 100 dollars on a chess site when they aren't any good in the first place.  Especially since there are places out there where you can do free tactics all day long and get free opening books online... Dumbshit.

It's that hard for you to make money?  Too bad you are a patzer too.

Avatar of Radical_Drift
Radical_Drift
Sep 28, 2013
0
#158
nameno1had wrote:
TetsuoShima wrote:

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...

Capablanca is less than sub-2400??? I know chess openings have changed in the past century, but I think such an assertion is flat-out wrong. Generally, I don't just parrot what computers had to say about a player's level of skill, but the fact that very strong computers consider Capablanca the most accurate player is certainly significant. Just because computers say it doesn't make it true, but certainly, opening theory aside, Capablanca was stronger than sub-2400 level???

http://en.chessbase.com/home/TabId/211/PostId/4007621

Of course openings are a large part of chess, especially the modern game. However, I'm talking about the game as a whole, and I'm disputing that sub-2400 players are not only stronger all-around players than Capablanca but that they are so much stronger than he is to be considered chess gods compared to him.

Avatar of Radical_Drift
Radical_Drift
Sep 28, 2013
0
#159

To add to the above, IM Silman also said if Capablanca or Lasker faced him at his prime in a match of ten games up, they'd go 10-0 with some draws. Of course, Silman isn't always right and he might be humble or biased, but certainly he in his prime was higher than sub-2400 level???

http://www.chess.com/article/view/emanuel-lasker-tactical-monster

Avatar of nameno1had
nameno1had
Sep 29, 2013
0
#160
chessman1504 wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
TetsuoShima wrote:

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...

Capablanca is less than sub-2400??? I know chess openings have changed in the past century, but I think such an assertion is flat-out wrong. Generally, I don't just parrot what computers had to say about a player's level of skill, but the fact that very strong computers consider Capablanca the most accurate player is certainly significant. Just because computers say it doesn't make it true, but certainly, opening theory aside, Capablanca was stronger than sub-2400 level???

http://en.chessbase.com/home/TabId/211/PostId/4007621

Of course openings are a large part of chess, especially the modern game. However, I'm talking about the game as a whole, and I'm disputing that sub-2400 players are not only stronger all-around players than Capablanca but that they are so much stronger than he is to be considered chess gods compared to him.

I am not sure who you are disputing, but I don't thing Capa was or is a patzer, even by todays standards, in spite of the fact, the game isn't the same today. The relative strength of players seems to have increased over time, but the elite GM's in my mind would be on par with on another's talent or perhaps better said, belong at the same table playing each other.

I was trying demonstrate the relativety and subjectivety of some one being a patzer, depending upon who we are talking about. (Example) a 2400 might be a considered a patzer to Carlsen or Anand, but to me they are like a chess god or playing against an engine.