We now have irrefutable proof that you're a bozo.

Im just entertaining myself by arguing here :laugh:

Exactly, because all you can do is pretend.

if you want the truth, then i will tell you.

Forums

Sort:

TS_theWoodiest wrote:

AngryPuffer wrote:

TS_theWoodiest wrote:

We now have irrefutable proof that you're a bozo.

Im just entertaining myself by arguing here :laugh:

Exactly, because all you can do is pretend.

if you want the truth, then i will tell you.

People who jump fast the 1800 barrier usually never surpass the 2400 limit!! It is strange but true the fact that 2400 chess is very different from 2000 chess

My old account... @Sea_TurtIe got to about 1900 and you can look at the games and how they went.

i took a long break so i am not of that exact level anymore, but if you want to bicker more then you are welcome to.

JaskeII wrote:

It depends, If you are just starting, I would say at least 5-7+ years. If you already have some experience (1500-1800) I would say 2-3+ years.

aint no way

if youre already 1500-1800 it would take you about a month to get 2000

Rating is always behind your level

JUst study more than you play and at the end play more than you study ; )

AngryPuffer wrote:

My old account... @Sea_TurtIe got to about 1900 and you can look at the games and how they went.

i took a long break so i am not of that exact level anymore, but if you want to bicker more then you are welcome to.

A short peak of 1870 is not really that close to 2000. Especially when you couldn't maintain that rating. If this was supposed to be your big reveal that proves you're 2000 strength it really did the opposite.

TS_theWoodiest wrote:

AngryPuffer wrote:

My old account... @Sea_TurtIe got to about 1900 and you can look at the games and how they went.

i took a long break so i am not of that exact level anymore, but if you want to bicker more then you are welcome to.

A short peak of 1870 is not really that close to 2000. Especially when you couldn't maintain that rating. If this was supposed to be your big reveal that proves you're 2000 strength it really did the opposite.

yet i was able to consistently beat 2000s

AngryPuffer wrote:

TS_theWoodiest wrote:

AngryPuffer wrote:
i took a long break so i am not of that exact level anymore, but if you want to bicker more then you are welcome to.

My old account... @Sea_TurtIe got to about 1900 and you can look at the games and how they went.

A short peak of 1870 is not really that close to 2000. Especially when you couldn't maintain that rating. If this was supposed to be your big reveal that proves you're 2000 strength it really did the opposite.

yet i was able to consistently beat 2000s

24 wins and 11 draws out of 74 games is probably pretty close to the expected win rate of a 1700-1800 player vs 2000 rated competition. Again, you were rated properly cos you know, that's kind of how a rating works. If you could "consistently beat 2000s" you'd not only be 2000, but you'd probably be 2100-2200.

@AngryPuffer Let it go dude. Me I got back from a long break too. Two year break. I want to see you become 1800.

@TS_theWoodiest Stop arguing with him. His real rating is 875 rapid. SamuelAjedrez95 account is the evidence.

TS_theWoodiest wrote:

AngryPuffer wrote:

TS_theWoodiest wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
i took a long break so i am not of that exact level anymore, but if you want to bicker more then you are welcome to.

A short peak of 1870 is not really that close to 2000. Especially when you couldn't maintain that rating. If this was supposed to be your big reveal that proves you're 2000 strength it really did the opposite.

My old account... @Sea_TurtIe got to about 1900 and you can look at the games and how they went.

yet i was able to consistently beat 2000s

24 wins and 11 draws out of 74 games is probably pretty close to the expected win rate of a 1700-1800 player vs 2000 rated competition. Again, you were rated properly cos you know, that's kind of how a rating works. If you could "consistently beat 2000s" you'd not only be 2000, but you'd probably be 2100-2200.

according to whos games?

TS_theWoodiest wrote:

24 wins and 11 draws out of 74 games is probably pretty close to the expected win rate of a 1700-1800 player vs 2000 rated competition.

A 200-point rating gap equates to 3-to-1 odds or a 75-25 split in results.

That would be 14 wins and 9 draws out of 74 games.

There is a clear excess of more than 10 wins over expectations, assuming 1800 vs 2000 rating.

If it was 1750 vs 2050, the excess is even greater.

my friend @gunnersroadto1000 i played a lot, for every 10 games he won 5 drew 1-2 and lost 3-4

so i doubt his "statistics" are correct

@AngryPuffer says he owns "SamuelAjedrez95" account. That says it all. Pretending and argument closed.

AngryPuffer wrote:

my friend @gunnersroadto1000 i played a lot, for every 10 games he won 5 drew 1-2 and lost 3-4

so i doubt his "statistics" are correct

My "statistics" are easy to lookup. I went to that account, to rapid games and sorted by a minimum rating of 2000.

blueemu wrote:

TS_theWoodiest wrote:
24 wins and 11 draws out of 74 games is probably pretty close to the expected win rate of a 1700-1800 player vs 2000 rated competition.

A 200-point rating gap equates to 3-to-1 odds or a 75-25 split in results.

That would be 14 wins and 9 draws out of 74 games.

There is a clear excess of more than 10 wins over expectations, assuming 1800 vs 2000 rating.

If it was 1750 vs 2050, the excess is even greater.

I trust your info, but I suspect that is based on the traditional FIDE Elo system, not the system that chess.com uses. Also, his peak rating was 1870 so it would make sense that he performed a bit higher than an 1800 during his rise to that rating if the win probabilities are similar between the two rating systems.

Most Recent

Forum Legend

Following

New Comments

Locked Topic

Pinned Topic

We now have irrefutable proof that you're a bozo.

Im just entertaining myself by arguing here :laugh:

Exactly, because all you can do is pretend.