An 800 rated player would be an absolute beginner. I think you are exaggerating.
And 5 hours of reading makes you 10 times better, it takes a lot longer than that.
I've noticed that turned based 1700 means live 800.
Sort:
Online ratings are inflated. There are people with over 3000, which means the rating system is clearly not calibrated right.
General rule of thumb is take away 200, but there are obviously exceptions.
For example, I only play online on my BlackBerry at work and my online rating is around 1650.
However, I play live chess at my house where I concetrate and its usually around 1700.
stanhope13 wrote:
An 800 rated player would be an absolute beginner. I think you are exaggerating.
And 5 hours of reading makes you 10 times better, it takes a lot longer than that.
An 800 player knows how to fork two rooks with a knight on f7 or recognise a simple sqewer of king and queen with a rook in the endgame. They might not notice that their opponent is about to do the same to them, but I would hardly count such a person as an absolute beginner. A smart absolute beginner (rated 500) might notice these but only after looking at the position for a bit and thinking about it, whereas the 800 player would quickly recognize such 1 move exploits but miss 2 and 3 move tactics a 1000 player notices. A not so strategic absolute beginner is probably 300 strength, and someone who just does not care is probably 100 strength. An 800 player already knows how to checkmate with two rooks. An absolute beginner would put the king in perpetual check, or maybe eventual figure it out or stumble on it.
I'm rated 1400, and I've played against people who know how to do simple pins and forks. I can start without my queen and rest assured that I will win 100% of my games against them, which proves they are rated 1000 or less.
I'm just trying to help people here. My advice is to buy books by Bruce Pandolfini, or start the chess course series by Lev Alburt. I myself play to buy Lev Alburt's series, starting with Chess Course vol 2. While at least half will be a review for me, I bet at least 1/4 will give me tools I never thought of, which will increase my strength at least 200 points.\
Finally, as for 10x the strength in 5 hours, that is NOT an exageration. You can read half of a Pandolfini book in 5 hours, and jump from 800 strength to 1000 strength. 10x the strength does not mean 10x the rating. A 1000 player probably knows 10x as much as an 800 player.
Study some books, or go diamond and study Chess Mentor, or just be happy with your 1700 turn play ratings. Choice is yours. I'm just telling you what is obvious to me from your posts, and I myself am a low rated amature.
At least I'm not too proud to admit I could learn from a comprehensive beginner book like Chess Course 2, even though I've been playing and doing middle game checkmates for years.
If just 5 hours of reading makes me 10 times as good, i won,t kiss your feet i,ll kiss your( comment deleted).
According to your math i am 1900+ turn- based (USCF 1700+) that would make me about 1000+ on live chess, Damn i suck thanks for bringing it to my attention 
Don't we love talking about hypothetical ratings
heinzie wrote:
Don't we love talking about hypothetical ratings
Everyone starts out at 1200 ratings and i went down from there , those scholar mates are sneaky !! 
Jul 30, 2011
0
#10
stanhope13 wrote:
An 800 rated player would be an absolute beginner. I think you are exaggerating.
And 5 hours of reading makes you 10 times better, it takes a lot longer than that.
If you are a beginner with an elo rating of 3, you might possibly be 30 in a few hours.
windows96 wrote:
stanhope13 wrote:
An 800 rated player would be an absolute beginner. I think you are exaggerating.
And 5 hours of reading makes you 10 times better, it takes a lot longer than that.
If you are a beginner with an elo rating of 3, you might possibly be 30 in a few hours.
True !! a begginner reading/studying the right book could make great strides moving up in a single day.
I've been reading many threads, and every time someone suggests a huge tactical or strategic blunder as a good move, I look at their profile and they just have a turned based rating, often of 1700 though I've seen as low as 1300. Anytime someone points out the correct move or provides good analysis, I look at their profile and they have a live rating of at least 1200, and not a turned based rating. I've looked at 15 profiles, and I've not found an exception to this trend.
Do most brand new chess beginners start out with just turned base games before they progress to live chess? Or are the turned based players actually pretty experienced and just studying in a why to develop their skills? And what does turned based mean?
The reason I'm making this post is I want all the turned based players to realized they need to ask the live players how they got where they are. If you are a true beginner, then welcome aboard. If you've been playing a while, then you need to change your study methods. There are some cheap books for beginners that will make you 10x stronger within just 5 hours of reading.