O I forgot but my meaning of master titles is different to some to me a CM is someone or thing 2000-2099 even though I know this not to be tru to me that seems more of a accurate estimate. And sorry about the computer thing the 2 1700 players were real.
Extreme Opponents
Sort:
I can solve all your problems real quick.
You can study, read and practice all you want it will help.
But you are playing online and their is a big difference.
More imporatant your playing on this site where your opponent has a life time to figure out there next compared to sitting down and playing your friend a couple of games in person. They board is set for players to review back and forth and forth and back. To make matters worse they can see what type of player you are in chess. They can tell if your on a losing streak or winning streak and etc. By now i hope your starting to get the point. This Chess site is a torture chamber no matter how good you are in games (usually 3day/move).
I'm loggin off for now (it's 1:25am were I live) I'm just to tired right sorry guys but thanks for all your input and I hope to continue this discussion tommorrow(I mean later on today).
royalbishop wrote:
I can solve all your problems real quick.
You can study, read and practice all you want it will help.
But you are playing online and their is a big difference.
More imporatant your playing on this site where your opponent has a life time to figure out there next compared to sitting down and playing your friend a couple of games in person. They board is set for players to review back and forth and forth and back. To make matters worse they can see what type of player you are in chess. They can tell if your on a losing streak or winning streak and etc. By now i hope your starting to get the point. This Chess site is a torture chamber no matter how good you are in games (usually 3day/move).
All these plans I have for playing tougher opposition is for OTB and perhaps livechess on chess.com but not turned based its way to long.
Shivsky wrote:
Computers don't count. Especially if it happens to be ChessMaster and it's contrived and utterly non-realistic handicapped emulations of human players.
A Master (Candidate, National or whatever the heck ) is a highly skilled chess playing human and the last time I checked, is in the top 99+% percentile of Federation-rated players on this planet.
Attempting to claim you drew a CM 3 times and then back-pedalling to this "It was a computer" is not helping your credibility.
y don't computers count your telling me you can draw a 2000 engine 3straight yourself and win the last game. Just cause it's not 2700+ like rybka or houdini doesn't mean it's not strong.
Davidjordan wrote:
Shivsky wrote:
Computers don't count. Especially if it happens to be ChessMaster and it's contrived and utterly non-realistic handicapped emulations of human players.
A Master (Candidate, National or whatever the heck ) is a highly skilled chess playing human and the last time I checked, is in the top 99+% percentile of Federation-rated players on this planet.
Attempting to claim you drew a CM 3 times and then back-pedalling to this "It was a computer" is not helping your credibility.
y don't computers count your telling me you can draw a 2000 engine 3straight yourself and win the last game. Just cause it's not 2700+ like rybka or houdini doesn't mean it's not strong.
Of course computers don't count like an OTB game vs a human would :)
Computer's are strong, but computer strength never translates well into human strength (I'm talking about comparable ratings). A computer rated less than 2500 now a days means an artificial handicap of time/ply or some such combination. Add to that the way computers play in the first place and you get a very different kind of game.
When I play someone rated 500 points below me at a tourney you can bet I'm going to make them prove anything that's not a loss. If they want a draw, they're going to have to take it all the way to an endgame where they prove they know the technique in every different try for a win I can think of.
chessmaster102 wrote:
Wafflemaster: That is a very good point what articles or books talk more about this subject.
Wish I could give you a sourse. I've picked up what I know about it from post mortems with stronger players.
Shivsky wrote:
paulgottlieb wrote:
I don't think very much of your idea of only playing people much stronger than you. For one thing, you will lose almost all your games, and I don't care how determined you are, a steady diet of losses wil take some of the starch out of you. And you will lose most of those games for one simple reason, because your opponents will be much better than you tactically. And since they will almost always have the advantage, you will never learn how to win! There's a tremendous gap between getting a good position, or playing a nice combination, and actually grinding out the win and forcing the game to a successful conclusion. There is no more important skill than learning how to buckle down and actually force your opponent to resign. And you will not learn that skill if you play a steady diet of people who out-rate you by 400 points
Nice post.
+1
Not that I don't like chessmaster102's plan, but bringing home an advantage to a win can be an ability all itself. Stifling all counterplay... grinding down an opponent who will try anything they can think of to diminish your advantage.
A related point is it's funny sometimes, you push a player rated 200 points below you against a wall, and as they say necessity is the mother of invention... desperate not to lose they can suddenly start playing stronger than the first part of the game, if you tend to relax after getting an advantage you're not going to win many games.
When I play against people of that strength I never relax I already know the possibilities of my advantage going away If you were one of the people I play chess with regularly and saw me play some of these guys you would see me jittery and my legs shaking almost non-stop and when people look at the board they see that I'm actually winning reason being is I get thrilled and very excited when I know I'm on the verge of beat a master or getting a upset in a tournament.
Before I played that match I changed it's blunder range from .5 to 0 so it wouldn't make any types of blunders and before moving to the next game I always checked to see it was on that. Not to mention I was rated 1106 (Class E) when I played the whole match I'm wellaware that it's hard to adjust engines so I did all this for it to play as accurate as it possible could for a 2000 player and in not one game did it blunder away even a pawn.
I came in here expecting to see stories about people who'd faced off over the board with mountain lions or rabid gorillas. (Or at a mimimum some meathead with a Mountain Dew.)
chessmaster102 in the opening ever move has a flaw.
In a chess game the key is being in postion to take advantage of those flaws.
No game is perfect. Sometimes these blunders can be forced.
I agree completely thats why my repertoire is made up mostly of system's so I can always be flexible. Not quite sure what that has to do with this post but thanks anyway
Well you mentions blunders in a game.
Against the opponent you mentioned you have to force them or be patient during the game to force them.
I ment paying against people of that strength it basically forces me to concentrate more till I'm able to give my full attention to game subconsciously
I haven't started yet since ll the replies say's something different so are we at a agreement that I should go forth with my plan or not.] not being impatient but I'm still practicing on a final decision.
I don't think it is a good idea. I would suggest playing players of at most 300-400 point above your rating, you will find them for free on chess.com. Then if you want to utilise you money, buy coaching from the players instead of paying to play games against them.
why do you think it's not a good idea though ?
Computers don't count. Especially if it happens to be ChessMaster and it's contrived and utterly non-realistic handicapped emulations of human players.
A Master (Candidate, National or whatever the heck ) is a highly skilled chess playing human and the last time I checked, is in the top 99+% percentile of Federation-rated players on this planet.
Attempting to claim you drew a CM 3 times and then back-pedalling to this "It was a computer" is not helping your credibility.