How good is a rating of 785?

Sort:
redbasket46

It's crap :)
 

X_PLAYER_J_X

I do not believe KingMagikarp was trying to be a troll.

I believe she was being honest and genuine.

To be completely honest I do agree with her.

I do miss my 500 ranking days.

Chess was completely different to me back than.

I use to enter position's which were unique.

My understanding was like nonexistant.

Moves like 1.a4 or 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 were the normal moves!

The Fried Liver Attack was like a Chess God line in those days.

It was worshipped and praised! Opponents were terrifed in complete fear some would even resign at the sight of it.

Now if I play a Fried Liver Attack my opponents smile and say Thank you for letting me equalize early pal.


AutisticCath

The Fried liver attack is baloney and only works on lower-rated players. I'm not even certain if there has been any master games in which it is even ever played.

hhnngg1
0110001101101000 wrote:

Practically all his moves were either:
1) basic development
2) threats
3) captures

You were giving away pieces so fast he hardly had a chance to think for himself. 

 

I'll give you a non-flaming honest opinion -

 

Your opponent played MUCH better than a <800 ELO player, on that game someone posted of yours on the first page. Sure, you make bigger mistakes that made his life easier to find good moves, but for sure he was making good moves even in the quieter positions. (Including the Q trade, which works to his advantage with material up, despite loss of castling.) 

 

I don't think it's engine-cheat quality though - he just had a good day where he saw all your blunders and then added some good quieter moves to give you no chances.

 

In my experience, against players <900, if if I'm a piece down, odds are very, very high that you will have good counterplay chances due to their later errors (even if they're not blunders.) I don't think your opponent in this game gave you any chances after your first blunder, which is pretty solid play for a <900 player. 

hhnngg1

I'm 1500 blitz, so I''m full of errors in my deeper analysis, but here's just some quick commentary on what I was impressed with for a <800 player in that game. I don't bother to comment on the obvious blunders.



boltjg

for you , the best youll ever have.

AutisticCath

i would have taken biushop ant  move 29 instead of rook. free piece vs. winning th e exchange.

Pai_Mei
newengland7 wrote:

The Fried liver attack is baloney and only works on lower-rated players. I'm not even certain if there has been any master games in which it is even ever played.

Not at all true.

I have seen IMs playing it in classical time controls.

fuzzbug

I think a Super-GM used it fairly recently to good effect.

X_PLAYER_J_X

I have lost against some tough 1200 players

etc2000chess
Honkytonk-Kitteh wrote:

Kingmagikarp is a humourless troll. Somebody loan him a few brain cells.

Fact: YOU'RE the humorless troll. You see, I don't find that funny.

bgianis

You have to keep trying for improvement. See this if you have the time

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/improvement-in-chess-according-to-elo

u0110001101101000

How good is a rating of 785?

Watch 1:19 to 1:32

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syhb3z4pTFQ

letsgohome

Hi everybody,  are my chess ratings in standard and blitz good or average? Also, take in mind that my first time playing chess was when I created this account. I do not read chess books, own a chess board,  or analyze master games or my own. I literally just play and do the 5 free tactic problems on this lovely site. 

P.S. I do not even know the name of the openings I am using. 

P.S.S I just use pattern recognition, logic, working memory and creativity  as the constituents of my heuristic approach.

Uhohspaghettio1

There is no meaning in categorizing ratings as "good" or "bad" or "terrible". 

For a person with intellectual difficulties (and everyone has intellectual difficitulties to some extent), a rating of 1000 might be a great rating. 

What meaning is there in saying "terrible" or "brilliant", the only thing we can say is that the vast majority of people do get rated above 750 after a while of playing. 

ANOK1

put it in the i will learn from this pile mate move on dust yourself down and be the player you can be ,

Raspberry_Yoghurt

Kasparov couldnt have played that game better

_Number_6
KingMagikarp wrote:
Honkytonk-Kitteh wrote:

you take offense at innocent posts, mister clown. Grow up. Besides your comment was total crap.

You are being offensive for no reason.  I love you, sir.  I hope you are having a good day.

Chess should not be about ratings and numbers and theory.  Chess is art at its finest.

Happy Holidays, Honkytonk-Kitteh :)  

Lola?

KingMagikarp
_Number_6 wrote:
KingMagikarp wrote:
Honkytonk-Kitteh wrote:

you take offense at innocent posts, mister clown. Grow up. Besides your comment was total crap.

You are being offensive for no reason.  I love you, sir.  I hope you are having a good day.

Chess should not be about ratings and numbers and theory.  Chess is art at its finest.

Happy Holidays, Honkytonk-Kitteh :)  

Lola?

What is that?  Lola?

thegreat_patzer
0110001101101000 wrote:
How good is a rating of 785?

Watch 1:19 to 1:32

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syhb3z4pTFQ

Dude THIS is hilarius.  This guy is perfect for the forums; Vulgar, offensive, arrogant past belief.

Check it out.

@OP.  why play 3 0 and 5 0 chess?   why play in the 600's blundering peices, with no time to think??

I've looked over your games- you totally need to work on keeping you peices, and pawn SAFE.   if you lived, breathed, and obsessed on that- you would start winning.   But do it AT LEAST with 10 minute blitz- and better yet, start playing G30.