Chess psychology is weird; I've had that happen to me before too. That's the key to truly mastering chess; 1900 is already a very high level of chess, but what often separates the titled player from 1900s is their consistency, no matter the rating of their opponent
Is a 1900 guy good at chess?
Sort:
Feb 18, 2022
0
#3
It happens to me too lol I play against 600 rated player and lose… I think because they overestimate you, and you underestimate them making them win.
it's nerves and overconfidence, your huge rating advantage gives them the sense that they have nothing to lose, which is true, and they play well, while you being nervous and feeling that you can't lose play badly
colorfulcake 写道:
it's nerves and overconfidence, your huge rating advantage gives them the sense that they have nothing to lose, which is true, and they play well, while you being nervous and feeling that you can't lose play badly
but I feel like it only happens to me :/
cellen01 wrote:
colorfulcake 写道:
it's nerves and overconfidence, your huge rating advantage gives them the sense that they have nothing to lose, which is true, and they play well, while you being nervous and feeling that you can't lose play badly
but I feel like it only happens to me :/
no it happens to me too
Feb 18, 2022
0
#7
I think 1900 is one of those "grinding" levels, where people get stuck. The difference between a 1900 and 1900+ is constancy. You can get a high level CM / IM play from a 1900, but the difference is that a 1900 is sometimes "hot" and sometimes "cold", while a titled player is "hot" every single match.
So finding inconstant play is normal in that range.
colorfulcake 写道:
cellen01 wrote:
colorfulcake 写道:
it's nerves and overconfidence, your huge rating advantage gives them the sense that they have nothing to lose, which is true, and they play well, while you being nervous and feeling that you can't lose play badly
but I feel like it only happens to me :/
no it happens to me too
Well, it looks like I will need to improve my chess psychology lol
ZeldaPower 写道:
Definitely NOT.
True ;-;
One thing to note is that the rating online fluctuates massively, so being the top in a field for a starting rank does not usually tell a sure thing. For instance, the players you face may be stronger than what their ratings suggest. Personally, I always say that when we understand enough then the rating gains would not be surprising. At the end of the day, our concrete knowledge of ideas, concepts and even on how to apply it would tell a difference. My two cents on it, stay safe and cheers! 😊😊
Feb 18, 2022
0
#13
1900 what? uscf? Fide? flyordie? chess.com?
1900 FIDE is a pretty decent player. in the U.S they would likely be in the "expert " rating range which between strong class player (1800) and master (2200)
Hi
Yes
cellen01 wrote:
colorfulcake 写道:
it's nerves and overconfidence, your huge rating advantage gives them the sense that they have nothing to lose, which is true, and they play well, while you being nervous and feeling that you can't lose play badly
but I feel like it only happens to me :/
Not to worry, on this site I became Santa Claus for a certain period of time (in terms of rating points before I eventually became the thief (i.e. recouped my losses in rating).
Even better: when I participated in my very first OTB tournament, I had no idea what chess clocks were, what en passant were and what rating systems were, though that tournament was I think unrated. During my second tournament, I still had no idea of what rating systems were, so when my school chess club mates told me that I obtained an initial local rating of 1700+, I didn't believe them (because majority of them received 1300+ and they were decently strong).
Well, I played poorly in the next tournament as an alternate, losing a game to a 1700+ and winning a game to a 1200+ (still not believing that I was 1700+). As expected, I dropped to 1600+ after that tournament.
Only in the following tournament I then noticed my rating numbers (and I had to dig up some source to find out that I was indeed a 1700+ once). I was basically gifting my rating points to others (albeit without knowing it).
Well, this was more than ten years ago though and my local rating system has since been abolished.
Feb 18, 2022
0
#19
binomine wrote:
I think 1900 is one of those "grinding" levels, where people get stuck. The difference between a 1900 and 1900+ is constancy. You can get a high level CM / IM play from a 1900, but the difference is that a 1900 is sometimes "hot" and sometimes "cold", while a titled player is "hot" every single match.
So finding inconstant play is normal in that range.
well, a titled player's "cold" probably feels really hot to the rest of us
TaylorsChess wrote:
One thing to note is that the rating online fluctuates massively, so being the top in a field for a starting rank does not usually tell a sure thing. For instance, the players you face may be stronger than what their ratings suggest. Personally, I always say that when we understand enough then the rating gains would not be surprising. At the end of the day, our concrete knowledge of ideas, concepts and even on how to apply it would tell a difference. My two cents on it, stay safe and cheers! 😊😊
I often treat 1300+ players as 1600+ level or even more at the start of every game because I regularly struggle against them, regardless of the outcome of the game.
I was playing in a blitz tournament where I am the highest rated player by a total of 500 rating points! I was 1950 and the second highest rated guy is 1550. But it ended up me losing to a 1300 two games straight and the 1550. I don't know how I am just hanging all my pieces but I then played a blitz game against a 1750, and he was literally at the edge of being dead but had a perpetual check and the game was a draw -_-
I feel like I am just playing worse against lower rated opponent. Especially when it is unrated. Also they just play really well when against me I feel like...