Is 1100 considered a respectable and above average rating? - Chess Forums - Page 14

Forsaken

Sep 15, 2024

0

#261

Prince_Skywalker wrote:

anyway

nice chatting with you guys on this topic

I'm going to stop following it now since I've been basically carrying it for a while.

hope you guys improve at blitz chess

if not, then oh well.

I'm 2300 and I'm happy

I’m happy with my rating as well

BigChessplayer665

Sep 15, 2024

0

#262

Prince_Skywalker wrote:

BigChessplayer665 wrote:

Prince_Skywalker wrote:

Arnav wrote:

but luke blitz isn't everything

its the only thing we play

so if you want to be cool then you got to learn blitz better

right now you're not very good at it

girls at my school are rated higher than you & they don't like that.

Actually it's not cool I thought you were a dweeb if you were 2000+ with no life

Pretty accurate tbh

now I know why you cant raise your blitz rating

Actually I raise it all the time 😝

Forsaken

Sep 15, 2024

0

#263

Prince_Skywalker wrote:

BigChessplayer665 wrote:

Prince_Skywalker wrote:

Arnav wrote:

but luke blitz isn't everything

its the only thing we play

so if you want to be cool then you got to learn blitz better

right now you're not very good at it

girls at my school are rated higher than you & they don't like that.

Actually it's not cool I thought you were a dweeb if you were 2000+ with no life

Pretty accurate tbh

now I know why you cant raise your blitz rating

And now I know why you can’t raise your IQ

Ziryab

Sep 15, 2024

0

#264

BigChessplayer665 wrote:

Prince_Skywalker wrote:

BigChessplayer665 wrote:

Prince_Skywalker wrote:

BigChessplayer665 wrote:

Prince_Skywalker wrote:

RageDeboi wrote:

Prince really loves crushing players….

can we play blitz

I enjoy defeating higher rated opponents actually

I don't like punching down on lower rated opponents like a bully. Unlike some of the other posters on this particular thread topic who consistently pick on opponents rated thousands of points below them

If you can't beat the underdog what's the point of beating higher rated people all this means is your a coward if anything your the bully

LOL

I feel so much smarter than you after reading that statement

Yet again if you arnt willing to beat the underdog your the coward your too focused on elo to actually put up a fight

This is the exact reason Trump's the coward during the debate ... When you do this you honestly sound scared

2300 Alphas like myself don't fear lower rated opponents like you

rather than talking trash in the forums, why don't you try to improve your blitz rating

you are at the same level you were when we had this discussion over a month ago

The guy pretending to be the alpha is typically the coward

I watched one of those alpha males pitch a fit this morning because some artists were painting a sunflower in the middle of the street. The road was partly blocked and he had to take a detour. I think the truck he was driving was too large for his skills.

Optimissed

Sep 15, 2024

0

#265

BigChessplayer665 wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

Prince_Skywalker wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

Prince_Skywalker wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

Prince_Skywalker wrote:

RageDeboi wrote:

Eh I don’t play blitz that much and I’m trying to focus more on rapid now

no one cares about Rapid chess

it won't make you better

All forms of chess make you better but especially, playing slowplay otb games seriously and then analysing them. But you can't play classical controls wellm if you can't blitz and it's also useful to be a good rapid player. As you get into time trouble in classical you have to vary from the kind of slowplay that's appropriate to games when each player has two and a half hours, to the kind of analysis used when each has 90 minutes, and then increase your speed in deliberate stages, but playing, say, the next 5 minutes ar rapid speed and then when you have three minutes left moving to blitz speed and maybe even bullet. Then you reach the time control, you're still in the game and, well, I used to go for a walk at that point, with my clock running, and come back and treat it as a fresh game, because mistakes can be more common just after a time control.

no

OK let's hear your criticisms. OK, I know this thread is just trash talking but see if you can rise to the challenge!

look you can believe what you want to believe. you are free to do that

however, reality is I'm a 2300 level player & you're 1600 blitz. that means that I know a lot more about blitz than you do.

Rapid doesn't make players better at chess

I just looked at your latest blitz game which you won, against Timetocrush. It told me enough to know that you are neither a good tactician, nor someone who has a good grasp of strategic princinples. Your opponent went wrong pretty obviously.

I think you are confusing speed of play with skill. I've played 5 mins chess at a genuine FIDE 2300 level in my time. I was very good. What I've seen tells me you are not of that standard. That was some time in the mid 1990s, whish I was still in my mid 40s.

Half of blitz is time management unless your good at making opponents blunder

That's partly true. The way I play classical chess is to make games complex if i can and create threats on both sides of the board. Try to set up situations where they will blunder.

However, in 5 mins blitz, there isn't much time to "manage" so I suppose you mean "move as fast as you can". I rarely think for longer than 30 seconds over a move in a 5 min game. Try to keep it to three seconds. A good player can plan a game in a 5/ +0 game. Maybe not in a 3 min game. I don't consider bullet to be chess, since I've proven (to myself) that making short moves produces wins. Shorter moves are faster moves, so you just play a classical opening and then do nothing very fast in bullet.

However, it's nonsense to claim that rapid doesn't make you a better player. Practice at all speeds, even bullet speeds, will help.

BigChessplayer665

Sep 15, 2024

0

#266

Optimissed wrote:

BigChessplayer665 wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

Prince_Skywalker wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

Prince_Skywalker wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

Prince_Skywalker wrote:

RageDeboi wrote:

Eh I don’t play blitz that much and I’m trying to focus more on rapid now

no one cares about Rapid chess

it won't make you better

All forms of chess make you better but especially, playing slowplay otb games seriously and then analysing them. But you can't play classical controls wellm if you can't blitz and it's also useful to be a good rapid player. As you get into time trouble in classical you have to vary from the kind of slowplay that's appropriate to games when each player has two and a half hours, to the kind of analysis used when each has 90 minutes, and then increase your speed in deliberate stages, but playing, say, the next 5 minutes ar rapid speed and then when you have three minutes left moving to blitz speed and maybe even bullet. Then you reach the time control, you're still in the game and, well, I used to go for a walk at that point, with my clock running, and come back and treat it as a fresh game, because mistakes can be more common just after a time control.

no

OK let's hear your criticisms. OK, I know this thread is just trash talking but see if you can rise to the challenge!

look you can believe what you want to believe. you are free to do that

however, reality is I'm a 2300 level player & you're 1600 blitz. that means that I know a lot more about blitz than you do.

Rapid doesn't make players better at chess

I just looked at your latest blitz game which you won, against Timetocrush. It told me enough to know that you are neither a good tactician, nor someone who has a good grasp of strategic princinples. Your opponent went wrong pretty obviously.

I think you are confusing speed of play with skill. I've played 5 mins chess at a genuine FIDE 2300 level in my time. I was very good. What I've seen tells me you are not of that standard. That was some time in the mid 1990s, whish I was still in my mid 40s.

Half of blitz is time management unless your good at making opponents blunder

That's partly true. The way I play classical chess is to make games complex if i can and create threats on both sides of the board. Try to set up situations where they will blunder.

However, in 5 mins blitz, there isn't much time to "manage" so I suppose you mean "move as fast as you can". I rarely think for longer than 30 seconds over a move in a 5 min game. Try to keep it to three seconds. A good player can plan a game in a 5/ +0 game. Maybe not in a 3 min game. I don't consider bullet to be chess, since I've proven (to myself) that making short moves produces wins. Shorter moves are faster moves, so you just play a classical opening and then do nothing very fast in bullet.

However, it's nonsense to claim that rapid doesn't make you a better player. Practice at all speeds, even bullet speeds, will help.

You actually need practice at all speeds anyway cause your gonna get into time trouble in classical you need to know when to think fast and slow

BigChessplayer665

Sep 15, 2024

0

#267

Plus blitz chess is surprisingly good at learning how to make things complicated especially when losing

Specifically learning how to swindle which is underrated

Forsaken

Sep 15, 2024

0

#268

I suck terribly at blitz

Lycanroc_King

Sep 15, 2024

0

#269

Above average

DemonIord

Sep 15, 2024

0

#270

I'm stuck on 1900+ on atomic chess tho any tips?

Forsaken

Sep 15, 2024

0

#271

Try for the scholars mate ❤️❤️❤️

M0lten_Knight

Sep 15, 2024

0

#272

#448 no, blitz determines blitz rating, but for fide and uscf classical is important, that random guys school isn’t anywhere near the definitive word on what ratings are important

ChessIsAGoodBoardGame

Sep 15, 2024

0

#273

Prince_Skywalker wrote:

nope

Rapid is meaningless

That's also meaningful unlike your life

ChessIsAGoodBoardGame

Sep 15, 2024

0

#274

What's your all's problem in daily chess?It's good.Just taking a bit more time for thinking and analysing a crime? seriously?Why?You all say it's easy to get rating in daily but the highest daily player is rated 26 or 2700 wheaeas in all other formats the highest is either very close to 3000 or more than 3000.

Romans_3_23-24

Sep 15, 2024

0

#275

1100 is good! anyways a peroson's value is not based on their chess rating or anything they've done. A person's value is based innately off of the fact that they are created in the image of God.

ChessIsAGoodBoardGame

Sep 15, 2024

0

#276

The new question:Is 1200 a good rating?

RyanZ_MD

Sep 15, 2024

0

#277

1100 and 1200 are above average, but definitely not respectable

basketstorm

Sep 15, 2024

0

#278

All these questions have no sense. Here on chess.com we are dealing with highly distorted rating system. Read my topic here, at least last messages:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/checking-if-elo-system-is-oppressive-with-proofs

Ziryab

Sep 15, 2024

0

#279

RyanZ_MD wrote:

1100 and 1200 are above average, but definitely not respectable

At OTB tournaments, 1100 is the lowest rated player.

DemonIord

Sep 16, 2024

0

#280

If you're not contented on your own rating then learn how to grind hard