Philosophy on Chess Improvement

stiggling

It was only 8 players after I ignored the two at the ends. The average might be 2300, I dunno.

And again, you might be better than 2200 right now, I don't know that either.

Anyway, so you're going to wait all this time before playing in a tournament? heh. Going to try to win some cash by being underrated maybe? Or maybe you set yourself a goal to reach before playing again.

In my experience even awful tournaments are learning experiences. I guess it's also possible to go to too many, but not going for years seems counter productive if improvement is your goal. Well, I guess you have some NM friends. That can be just as good maybe. I read some story about a guy who didn't go to a single tournament until he was almost GM strength. He played his titled friends all the time and got good that way.

Aizen89

Good points, PowerofHope.

 

stiggling: The reason for the wait actually doesn't have anything to do with money, interestingly (though taking a crack at a big tournament in the U2000 section as my debut back onto the scene might not be a bad way to start, lol).  It's actually due to some personal health-related things that I am not ready yet.  Part psychological and part physical.  I do want to get better over time, but I also need to address those issues before I feel like I can really do my best in a tournament.  I figure a year or two is the time I'll need to recover.  I'm already starting to feel a bit better, but I still have a ways to go.  Given that health also contributes to chess, I think some of my move higher in the future (maybe as much as 100 points) could be added on because of said improved health.  Do you happen to remember the guy who was GM strength?  I'd be interested to read that and, if he's still playing, to see where he is today.  happy.png

stiggling

I might not remember this correctly, but I think the GM I was thinking of is Ronin Har-Zvi.

If you look at his chessgames.com profile he only has 81 games!

(Most GMs of course have many more, and top professionals have thousands in chessgames.com database).

http://www.chessgames.com/player/ronen_har-zvi

Aizen89

Oh wow!  That's amazing!  I just checked his Wikipedia page and guess what?  He met his wife on the Internet Chess Club.  What are the odds of meeting a woman on a chess site?  That's amazing in and of itself, lol.  

JulianProleiko
Aizen89 wrote:

I can't speak for others, but I'm definitely not a blitz specialist.  Faster time controls have always been my weakness.  In OTB tournaments under a 40 in 2, 1 hour sudden death structure, my win rate was something close to 80%.  I've always been a lot stronger at slow games than quick ones.  So it's possible I could still be a bit off.  Oh well, I'll just need to add another hundred points to play it safe.  Then again, the 2216 blitz average you calculated is interesting because for USCF masters are generally between 2200 and 2400 USCF, so I'd have thought an average would be closer to 2300.  Either way, it doesn't make a huge difference because I hope to hit 2300 on here next year.  That must be comfortably at the master level on a USCF basis I'd wager.  =P

I don't think chess.com blitz rating means a whole lot when trying to calculate otb standard skill. There are lots of people I know who don't have very good chess.com blitz ratings and are above 2400 USCF and also one of my best friends has a blitz of 2000 or something and he's 2250 USCF.

Blitz is blitz, standard is standard, saying they're not correlated entirely would be incorrect but I don't think it matters as much as you think it does.

 

Also, I would point out some people don't care what their blitz rating is.

For instance, I didn't play blitz on here for maybe 3-4 months then I started playing again and I went from the 2200 to 2350-2400 range.

In short, I think it's kinda random.

stiggling
JulianProleiko wrote:

Also, I would point out some people don't care what their blitz rating is.

That almost makes it sound like they don't care if they win. Maybe that's true, but I definitely try to win even though at the same time I'm playing for fun. Like how almost 100% of my games here were played after drinking (sometimes a lot of drinking) and on Saturday I played for 22 hours straight (and made a forum post about it tongue.png).

Other people have kids, and are trying to get a few games in before work, while they're still half asleep with kids screaming in the background.

You never know.

JulianProleiko
stiggling wrote:
JulianProleiko wrote:

Also, I would point out some people don't care what their blitz rating is.

That almost makes it sound like they don't care if they win. Maybe that's true, but I definitely try to win even though at the same time I'm playing for fun. Like how almost 100% of my games here were played after drinking (sometimes a lot of drinking) and on Saturday I played for 22 hours straight (and made a forum post about it ).

Other people have kids, and are trying to get a few games in before work, while they're still half asleep with kids screaming in the background.

You never know.

My main point is they're just different skills. Becoming good at one doesn't necessarily mean you're going to get good at the other.

stiggling

I agree.

As I've said before, I think for most people (not all people) it's + or - 200, so it's not a terrible estimate for people who've never played OTB (how else could a person test themselves?), but at the same time 400 points is a wide range.

Aizen89

I'm in agreement with you, stiggling, based on my own experiences and observations.  No, I don't think it's perfect whatsoever.  I do think, though, that a range of 100 to 200 is very probable.  Somebody rated 2200 blitz isn't going to be beyond the 2000 to 2400 range.

Aizen89

Update!  Just hit 2103!  Fresh all-time high and 2018's revised target (up from 2000 and then up from 2050).  I'm taking the week of Christmas off of work, so does anybody want to guess if I'll be able to hit 2150 or not during that week?

kaspariano
Aizen89 wrote:

I'm in agreement with you, stiggling, based on my own experiences and observations.  No, I don't think it's perfect whatsoever.  I do think, though, that a range of 100 to 200 is very probable.  Somebody rated 2200 blitz isn't going to be beyond the 2000 to 2400 range.

 

It all depends on the real playing strength of who you play against, either online or in OTB tournaments.  Some chess players make it to 2200 playing only very weak players at their chess club, and some others make above 2100 online playing weak players online, and vice versa.  

Aizen89

That's a fair point.  My settings on here are arranged to accept people no lower than 100 points beneath me at any given time.  I've put no limit on stronger people.  Of the last 10 people I've played on here, the average rating was 2056 and my score was 7.5 out of 10.  

kaspariano
stiggling wrote:

It was only 8 players after I ignored the two at the ends. The average might be 2300, I dunno.

And again, you might be better than 2200 right now, I don't know that either.

Anyway, so you're going to wait all this time before playing in a tournament? heh. Going to try to win some cash by being underrated maybe? Or maybe you set yourself a goal to reach before playing again.

In my experience even awful tournaments are learning experiences. I guess it's also possible to go to too many, but not going for years seems counter productive if improvement is your goal. Well, I guess you have some NM friends. That can be just as good maybe. I read some story about a guy who didn't go to a single tournament until he was almost GM strength. He played his titled friends all the time and got good that way.

 

Jorge Sammour-Hasbun, and Yaacov Narowitz whom are now IMs were untitled back in the years 2000s, they were beating title players left and right at the ICC even when they had not titles themselves.  Jorge even won ICC tournament Dos Hermanas above a bunch of 2600 FIDE rated GMs

http://web.chessdailynews.com/untitled-jorge-sammour-hasbun-wins-dos-hermanas/