So who is this wannabe FM anyway woodshover?
Pardon the intrusion, but If you think about it, it's the subconscious dream of EVERY chess player rated 1500.
Yet another mind-reader who thinks it's impossible for anyone else to think or believe differently than himself.
Good God man, you should have known I wasn't talking about myself!!!!!! I was talking about somebody else on here rated 1500 who said it. I know I'm getting nowhere. I don't even plan on ever playing in tournaments! I just thought he had no common sense what so ever, and somebody should tell him so ever, to have said something like that.
woodshover, ever since you went from 800, to 801 you've clearly come across as one who thinks themselves to be 1500. You cannot hide that acidic fruitiness under an orange rind of denial.
Seemed like a reasonable enough comment Cystem, most chess enthusiasts do crave super strength. I mean, I once met a guy who was trying to lose rating points, but that's only because he was from a golfing background.
lol
most chess enthusiasts do crave super strength.
I don't even agree with this comment, but "most" is still a much more reasonable term than "EVERY" (his emphasis).
And flight, maybe invisibility too, that sounds like fun.
Master isn't that hard... provided you dedicate a lot of time and energy to it over the course of a few years. Otherwise, i.e. if you want a job, family, etc. then unless you have some natural talent you'd have to settle for less. Most masters have not forsaken everything else to make it, so yes, they're talented... if the average person wants to go from class C to master in lets say 3 years like this thread asks, then I think that's possible, you'd just have to focus solely on chess during that time.
I always wanted one of those big extraterrestrial craniums that would hold about 12 regular human brains. If I could keep it from falling onto the chessboard I'd be ever so good.
I always wanted one of those big extraterrestrial craniums that would hold about 12 regular human brains. If I could keep it from falling onto the chessboard I'd be ever so good.
Sounds like you've had some field trials...
Field trials... something any dog worth his tail knows about... lol
The author of "Chess Master... at any age" is a living testament of getting to the master class in just a few years through intense training.
I'll get back with the specifics (like the initial and final ratings) when I find them.
My bad. The author, Rolf Wetzell, went from 1800 (USCF) in 1972 to 2200 in 1988 (400 rating points in 16 years). Even he took more than 5 years to reach master level.
I guess the only kudos that I could give the man was for the fact that he still achieved the 2200 USCF rating in his 50s. Groovy! 
most chess enthusiasts do crave super strength.
I don't even agree with this comment, but "most" is still a much more reasonable term than "EVERY" (his emphasis).
How tiresome. This is a casual place, not a scientific conference.
You're right, I was being generous. Upon reflection, your sweeping generalization was just as inane as the first one.
800 to 850 is going to be hard enough, woodshover. You're getting WAY ahead of yourself!
hey hey hey! no way that's true, in fact I bet he can get to FM in less than a year. Do you realise that when I joined this site a month ago, my rateing dropped to 700, now im 1151. 800 to 850 is something you're capable of accomplishing in one day, heck if you're determined enough, one hour. dont forget, I gained 450 points in one month...should this pattern continue, I could get to 2000 by christmas, and If I do I shall revisit this forum, and rub it in your faces lol. Anyway, I dont think you should discourage him, if he believes he can get to FM in 3 years then by all means, he certainly can.
Pardon my ignorance, but where can I look up the significance of the various classifications and the meaning of ranking?
Pardon my ignorance, but where can I look up the significance of the various classifications and the meaning of ranking?
Here's a start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess#Titles_and_rankings
Thanks, that's useful, along with the link to the Elo rating system. But what I'm wondering in particular is what the significance is of 1200 vs 1300 vs 1400 and so on. I used to play quite a lot as a child and have just taken it up again after 30 years, and now the correspondence chess on this site has me at 1400, and the mentor has me at over 1600, which I suspect is bogus. If the OP is 800, does that mean he is a beginner? Thanks for any info, I just don't remember any of that stuff, and probably never paid attention anyhow.
There's no direct relation between your chess.com rating and an over-the-board (OTB) rating. You can find quite a few forums here (using the search mechanism) discussing a comparison, but a lot of people here seem to think a player's online (correspondence) rating at chess.com is probably 200 or 300 points higher than what their OTB rating from real tournaments would be. That's because ratings are calculated based on your performance against the pool of competition, and since chess.com includes many lower-end players and probably has a lower average chess-ability than the pool of OTB tournament players, a given player will do better overall at their chess.com games than (s)he would in OTB tournaments, and thus end up with a higher rating on chess.com.
You've still played few enough games that each game can result in a large swing in your rating, by as much as 150 or 200 points. By the time you've got 20 or so completed games in your database your rating will be a lot less volatile, and also better representative of your ability vs. the chess.com community.
Keep in mind too that there can be a difference between your online (correspondence) rating and your chess.com live game rating, plus there are different live ratings for different time settings. It seems like most people's online rating is higher than their live rating.
By the way, I'd think the mentor "rating" is probably the least useful of the group. It might be good for measuring your progress with the lessons, but the ratings from actual games have to be a better measure of your overall ability compared to other players.
There is no such stupid thing as talent, everyone can be anything he wants with hard work and planning.
One last link-- here's a graphical display of the ratings of all chess.com players, and you can click to change to graph to display online, live blitz, live long, etc.
http://www.chess.com/echess/players.html
So who is this wannabe FM anyway woodshover?
Pardon the intrusion, but If you think about it, it's the subconscious dream of EVERY chess player rated 1500.