Very nice achievement. Keep up the good work. 
Reached 2000 in rapid
Sort:
FortyPlusImprovement wrote:
RubenIdafeHernandez wrote:
I noticed an interesting trend. Im better in 10 + 0 than in 15+10 . Simply changing the time control allowed me to reach this amazing rating. Right now Im going for the 2100 since 2000 is not enough.
You're better at 10/0 because you obviously prefer moving fast to making good moves. 10/0 games don't at all correlate to actual OTB ability whatsoever. Put some time on the clock and add an increment. That's the only way to tell how good you really are.
This is strictly false otherwise we would have players being 3000 in rapid that were 300 in classical. This does not happen because while classical chess is about playing good moves, speed chess is about playing slightly less good moves quickly. Ability at all time controls is correlated with ability to make good moves.
That said there is some time control specialization. Hikaru is a speed chess specialist who is quite good at classical chess but not as good as Fabiano who is "relatively" weak in speed chess (relative to his classical chess prowess not any objective measure). So the correlation isn't perfect, but certainly exists. We don't have any world class blitz players that aren't GMs in classical or vice versa any SGMs that aren't quality blitz players.
Having one's rating go up by switching time controls does not indicate an increase of general chess ability. It indicates either a preference for the time control, or simply a change in strength of the player pool.
All that said, congrats to the OP who hit a major milestone that is a personal goal of mine.
FortyPlusImprovement escreveu:
RubenIdafeHernandez wrote:
I noticed an interesting trend. Im better in 10 + 0 than in 15+10 . Simply changing the time control allowed me to reach this amazing rating. Right now Im going for the 2100 since 2000 is not enough.
You're better at 10/0 because you obviously prefer moving fast to making good moves. 10/0 games don't at all correlate to actual OTB ability whatsoever. Put some time on the clock and add an increment. That's the only way to tell how good you really are.
Lmao congrats on being ultra rude when the guy was just sharing a nice achievement on his
Basically no one is dumb enough to actually spend their time in online classical chess, it's just not rewarding at all as a form of study, studying OTB is just way more practical
And I already played a lot of 15/0 and similar time controls OTB, so you clearly don't know what you are talking about
FortyPlusImprovement escreveu:
RubenIdafeHernandez wrote:
The games are played in equally conditions for both. I dont see why you think that is not a merit or that it doesnt entails real chess.
Are you rated btw?
My rating has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying. If you can't grasp why a 10/0 game means nothing, you'll just have to have a rude awakening OTB. I repeat: 10/0 is played nowhere but on Chess.com. Only on Chess.com is there a focus on speed chess. Nowhere else in the world of chess is the focus placed on speed chess. You can't win a title or anything playing speed chess. You can't be good at speed chess until you're a titled player in classical. None of this is my opinion, it's been repeated by countless titled players on here, and nothing that you say or do is going to change any of it.
There are countless titled players who disagree, so I don't know if you can say that with such confidence.
A lot of non-titled players are strong blitz/rapid players. Also, YES, THERE ARE 10 MIN GAMES IN REAL LIFE. And if he wants to be good at speed chess instead of classical, so what? What right do you have to stop him from doing so? None.
fayizchess87 escreveu:
@RubenIdafeHernandez you’re acting like a complete moron. As someone rated around 2000 OTB FortyPlusImprovement is completely right.
Then how come you're 1900 rapid and 2000 bullet lol imagine hypocrisy
Nov 22, 2021
0
#28
CooloutAC wrote:
jmpchess12 wrote:
FortyPlusImprovement wrote:
RubenIdafeHernandez wrote:
I noticed an interesting trend. Im better in 10 + 0 than in 15+10 . Simply changing the time control allowed me to reach this amazing rating. Right now Im going for the 2100 since 2000 is not enough.
You're better at 10/0 because you obviously prefer moving fast to making good moves. 10/0 games don't at all correlate to actual OTB ability whatsoever. Put some time on the clock and add an increment. That's the only way to tell how good you really are.
This is strictly false otherwise we would have players being 3000 in rapid that were 300 in classical. This does not happen because while classical chess is about playing good moves, speed chess is about playing slightly less good moves quickly. Ability at all time controls is correlated with ability to make good moves.
That said there is some time control specialization. Hikaru is a speed chess specialist who is quite good at classical chess but not as good as Fabiano who is "relatively" weak in speed chess (relative to his classical chess prowess not any objective measure). So the correlation isn't perfect, but certainly exists. We don't have any world class blitz players that aren't GMs in classical or vice versa any SGMs that aren't quality blitz players.
Having one's rating go up by switching time controls does not indicate an increase of general chess ability. It indicates either a preference for the time control, or simply a change in strength of the player pool.
All that said, congrats to the OP who hit a major milestone that is a personal goal of mine.
Levon Aronian put it best in an interview with chessbase india this week. He said in blitz the strategy is to not necessarily make the "best" or "correct" move, but to make a move that poses the most questions to your opponent. And as Magnus has been quoted as saying, just Like Aronian, this comes with experience.
So IMO, experience and skill matter even more in blitz. And there is definitely different strategies employed and why there is separate ratings. Hikaru is quoting saying something like "those who balk about bullet chess because they will blunder so much, should relish in the fact their opponent will blunder more.
And lets face it, guys like HIkaru and others are rare. Most of us have higher ratings in classical chess vs blitz, cause its simply less pressure on your game and because the competition is weaker. Its always recommended for beginners to play slower time controls for a reason.
Here are average ratings for blitz and rapid here.
This is rapid:
Avg Rating
So on average it is pretty similar. One other thing. Blitz is played by titled players, rapid is rarely played by titled players. This is one of the reasons why sub 2 000 rated people tend to have bigger rapid rating. Titled players take a lot of points, and the lower level we are, the more points they take from us. It is like a pyramid scheme, if I may use the analogy.
If you look at FIDE rating it is a different story, some people have better classical, some have better blitz FIDE rating. That is simply because rating pools tend to be similar. Here, rapid and blitz pools are not the same because in one of the pools highest rated people almost do not participate (some do from time to time).
This is why you shouldn't really compare your rapid and blitz rating, pools are pretty different.
Nov 22, 2021
0
#29
CooloutAC wrote:
nklristic wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
jmpchess12 wrote:
FortyPlusImprovement wrote:
RubenIdafeHernandez wrote:
I noticed an interesting trend. Im better in 10 + 0 than in 15+10 . Simply changing the time control allowed me to reach this amazing rating. Right now Im going for the 2100 since 2000 is not enough.
You're better at 10/0 because you obviously prefer moving fast to making good moves. 10/0 games don't at all correlate to actual OTB ability whatsoever. Put some time on the clock and add an increment. That's the only way to tell how good you really are.
This is strictly false otherwise we would have players being 3000 in rapid that were 300 in classical. This does not happen because while classical chess is about playing good moves, speed chess is about playing slightly less good moves quickly. Ability at all time controls is correlated with ability to make good moves.
That said there is some time control specialization. Hikaru is a speed chess specialist who is quite good at classical chess but not as good as Fabiano who is "relatively" weak in speed chess (relative to his classical chess prowess not any objective measure). So the correlation isn't perfect, but certainly exists. We don't have any world class blitz players that aren't GMs in classical or vice versa any SGMs that aren't quality blitz players.
Having one's rating go up by switching time controls does not indicate an increase of general chess ability. It indicates either a preference for the time control, or simply a change in strength of the player pool.
All that said, congrats to the OP who hit a major milestone that is a personal goal of mine.
Levon Aronian put it best in an interview with chessbase india this week. He said in blitz the strategy is to not necessarily make the "best" or "correct" move, but to make a move that poses the most questions to your opponent. And as Magnus has been quoted as saying, just Like Aronian, this comes with experience.
So IMO, experience and skill matter even more in blitz. And there is definitely different strategies employed and why there is separate ratings. Hikaru is quoting saying something like "those who balk about bullet chess because they will blunder so much, should relish in the fact their opponent will blunder more.
And lets face it, guys like HIkaru and others are rare. Most of us have higher ratings in classical chess vs blitz, cause its simply less pressure on your game and because the competition is weaker. Its always recommended for beginners to play slower time controls for a reason.
Here are average ratings for blitz and rapid here.
This is rapid:
Avg Rating 806.75
And this is blitz:
And this is blitz:
Avg Rating 819.71
So on average it is pretty similar. One other thing. Blitz is played by titled players, rapid is rarely played by titled players. This is one of the reasons why sub 2 000 rated people tend to have bigger rapid rating. Titled players take a lot of points, and the lower level we are, the more points they take from us. It is like a pyramid scheme, if I may use the analogy.
If you look at FIDE rating it is a different story, some people have better classical, some have better blitz FIDE rating. That is simply because rating pools tend to be similar. Here, rapid and blitz pools are not the same because in one of the pools highest rated people almost do not participate (some do from time to time).
This is why you shouldn't really compare your rapid and blitz rating, pools are pretty different.
Did you read the last paragraph from my post you quoted? Your explanation was not needed lmao. Also don't forget, slow chess is what is recommended for beginners, for good reason. So there are many reasons why the "competition is weaker".
Also just to point out if you look at the top of the curve in the graph, most players are about 100-200 points lower in blitz compared to the rapid rating.
In any case, as you can see, on average, ratings are almost the same. Actually blitz rating is a little higher (which is a bit of a surprise for me). Yes, slow chess is recommended, because learning chess by playing blitz is not good in most cases. How difficult is it to play has nothing to do with it. Coaches will recommend slower chess because that is how it is more effective to learn the game.
Calculation is almost impossible to master by playing 3|0 games for instance. Some people can, but most can't. So it is simply not an effective way for improvement. So no good coach will say to his student: "Just play blitz, slow chess is a waste of time."
It is much easier to play blitz, by the way. Not only that it is mentally and physically much less draining than a long game, but in classical, mistakes will cost you the game in much higher percentage.
In blitz, take you for instance, you hang a queen or a minor piece multiple times in some games and in many instances your opponents don't even see it. Even on a higher level, people miss mate in 1 and stuff like that. Blitz is more forgiving towards bad moves because you have less time. But you've already heard that, you had this discussion with multiple people who actually know a bit about chess.
CooloutAC wrote:
B1ZMARK wrote:
DCthedestroyer wrote:
But to see your real strength you HAVE to play longer time controls!
Why would most people care about their "real strength", and who gets to dictate what their "real strength" is? In my opinion your real strength is the time control you perform best in, because that's a strength in itself.
well said. This guy has 2000 rating in one of the most popular and competitive time controls. Thats pretty darn good.
Exactly. Of course, 2000 rapid on chess.com isn't the same as 2000 OTB. But 10 0 isn't bullet or daily chess or puzzle rush. So there is at least some correlation to OTB chess. So congrats to this achievement!
Nov 22, 2021
0
#31
CooloutAC wrote:
nklristic wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
nklristic wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
jmpchess12 wrote:
FortyPlusImprovement wrote:
RubenIdafeHernandez wrote:
I noticed an interesting trend. Im better in 10 + 0 than in 15+10 . Simply changing the time control allowed me to reach this amazing rating. Right now Im going for the 2100 since 2000 is not enough.
You're better at 10/0 because you obviously prefer moving fast to making good moves. 10/0 games don't at all correlate to actual OTB ability whatsoever. Put some time on the clock and add an increment. That's the only way to tell how good you really are.
This is strictly false otherwise we would have players being 3000 in rapid that were 300 in classical. This does not happen because while classical chess is about playing good moves, speed chess is about playing slightly less good moves quickly. Ability at all time controls is correlated with ability to make good moves.
That said there is some time control specialization. Hikaru is a speed chess specialist who is quite good at classical chess but not as good as Fabiano who is "relatively" weak in speed chess (relative to his classical chess prowess not any objective measure). So the correlation isn't perfect, but certainly exists. We don't have any world class blitz players that aren't GMs in classical or vice versa any SGMs that aren't quality blitz players.
Having one's rating go up by switching time controls does not indicate an increase of general chess ability. It indicates either a preference for the time control, or simply a change in strength of the player pool.
All that said, congrats to the OP who hit a major milestone that is a personal goal of mine.
Levon Aronian put it best in an interview with chessbase india this week. He said in blitz the strategy is to not necessarily make the "best" or "correct" move, but to make a move that poses the most questions to your opponent. And as Magnus has been quoted as saying, just Like Aronian, this comes with experience.
So IMO, experience and skill matter even more in blitz. And there is definitely different strategies employed and why there is separate ratings. Hikaru is quoting saying something like "those who balk about bullet chess because they will blunder so much, should relish in the fact their opponent will blunder more.
And lets face it, guys like HIkaru and others are rare. Most of us have higher ratings in classical chess vs blitz, cause its simply less pressure on your game and because the competition is weaker. Its always recommended for beginners to play slower time controls for a reason.
Here are average ratings for blitz and rapid here.
This is rapid:
Avg Rating 806.75
And this is blitz:
And this is blitz:
Avg Rating 819.71
So on average it is pretty similar. One other thing. Blitz is played by titled players, rapid is rarely played by titled players. This is one of the reasons why sub 2 000 rated people tend to have bigger rapid rating. Titled players take a lot of points, and the lower level we are, the more points they take from us. It is like a pyramid scheme, if I may use the analogy.
If you look at FIDE rating it is a different story, some people have better classical, some have better blitz FIDE rating. That is simply because rating pools tend to be similar. Here, rapid and blitz pools are not the same because in one of the pools highest rated people almost do not participate (some do from time to time).
This is why you shouldn't really compare your rapid and blitz rating, pools are pretty different.
Did you read the last paragraph from my post you quoted? Your explanation was not needed lmao. Also don't forget, slow chess is what is recommended for beginners, for good reason. So there are many reasons why the "competition is weaker".
Also just to point out if you look at the top of the curve in the graph, most players are about 100-200 points lower in blitz compared to the rapid rating.
In any case, as you can see, on average, ratings are almost the same. Actually blitz rating is a little higher (which is a bit of a surprise for me). Yes, slow chess is recommended, because learning chess by playing blitz is not good in most cases. How difficult is it to play has nothing to do with it. Coaches will recommend slower chess because that is how it is more effective to learn the game.
Calculation is almost impossible to master by playing 3|0 games for instance. Some people can, but most can't. So it is simply not an effective way for improvement. So no good coach will say to his student: "Just play blitz, slow chess is a waste of time."
It is much easier to play blitz, by the way. Not only that it is mentally and physically much less draining than a long game, but in classical, mistakes will cost you the game in much higher percentage.
In blitz, take you for instance, you hang a queen or a minor piece multiple times in some games and in many instances your opponents don't even see it. Even on a higher level, people miss mate in 1 an stuff like that. Blitz is more forgiving towards bad moves because you have less time. But you've already heard that, you had this discussion with multiple people who actually know a bit about chess.
In any case, most people have a higher rating in rapid then they do in blitz. As the curve in the graphs show.
Did you really say "calculation is impossible" for 3 min blitz? hahaha. I think most players around the world, especially professionals would disagree with that statement.
I only play 30+0 classical when I don't have to stress. When i'm on my tablet lying on my couch and watching tv at the same time. When i have plenty of time to make moves. So I totally disagree. There is a reason why slower time controls are recommended to people struggling at faster time controls. You are probably one of those people who suggest that ironically.
Like the HIkaru quote, "relish the fact you opponent will hang more pieces then you" The "perfect" game would simply just lead to a draw and I wouldn't even consider that sporting.
Calculation is not impossible, of course. But as I've stated, someone starting out will not learn calculation by playing blitz in most cases. And those professionals, their blitz calculation is much more superficial than their classical calculation. Their "work" between the moves is much bigger in classical than in blitz. In blitz they just have to make some practical decision in order to not lose on time.
Yes, I know about your routine for 30|0 games. You've stated this previously. This just means that you are kind of slacking in longer games. And if you are not making an effort and do not really care about those games, of course you will feel this way.
I've already stated why slower paced games are recommended for improving players. As for me, I just enjoy longer games too much. Even 30|0 games are in many cases less enjoyable (even though I had some nice results with those).
I would certainly be bad at faster games after playing slower games almost exclusively for a year and a half. But if I wanted to, I would improve my rating to somewhat respectable level compared to my rapid rating after a while (not right away of course). It would need some adjusting to short time control. I've played some blitz games in the past (not here, except those 3 that are in my history), and you can easily play 5-10 blitz games in a row if you wish (even when I try my best).
Playing more than 1 slower game in a row can wipe me out, both physically and mentally. It reminds me of the time where I would sit for 4 hours for some exam, and my brain feels like it is boiled. And truth to be told, I just can't be as passionate about a game that lasts for 5-10 minutes at most and about some game where I sit for 1 to 2 hours and where I expend so much effort. There is just no comparison.
Congrats! What do you mean by 2000 is not enough? Enough for what?
Nov 22, 2021
0
#33
CooloutAC wrote:
nklristic wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
nklristic wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
nklristic wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
jmpchess12 wrote:
FortyPlusImprovement wrote:
RubenIdafeHernandez wrote:
I noticed an interesting trend. Im better in 10 + 0 than in 15+10 . Simply changing the time control allowed me to reach this amazing rating. Right now Im going for the 2100 since 2000 is not enough.
You're better at 10/0 because you obviously prefer moving fast to making good moves. 10/0 games don't at all correlate to actual OTB ability whatsoever. Put some time on the clock and add an increment. That's the only way to tell how good you really are.
This is strictly false otherwise we would have players being 3000 in rapid that were 300 in classical. This does not happen because while classical chess is about playing good moves, speed chess is about playing slightly less good moves quickly. Ability at all time controls is correlated with ability to make good moves.
That said there is some time control specialization. Hikaru is a speed chess specialist who is quite good at classical chess but not as good as Fabiano who is "relatively" weak in speed chess (relative to his classical chess prowess not any objective measure). So the correlation isn't perfect, but certainly exists. We don't have any world class blitz players that aren't GMs in classical or vice versa any SGMs that aren't quality blitz players.
Having one's rating go up by switching time controls does not indicate an increase of general chess ability. It indicates either a preference for the time control, or simply a change in strength of the player pool.
All that said, congrats to the OP who hit a major milestone that is a personal goal of mine.
Levon Aronian put it best in an interview with chessbase india this week. He said in blitz the strategy is to not necessarily make the "best" or "correct" move, but to make a move that poses the most questions to your opponent. And as Magnus has been quoted as saying, just Like Aronian, this comes with experience.
So IMO, experience and skill matter even more in blitz. And there is definitely different strategies employed and why there is separate ratings. Hikaru is quoting saying something like "those who balk about bullet chess because they will blunder so much, should relish in the fact their opponent will blunder more.
And lets face it, guys like HIkaru and others are rare. Most of us have higher ratings in classical chess vs blitz, cause its simply less pressure on your game and because the competition is weaker. Its always recommended for beginners to play slower time controls for a reason.
Here are average ratings for blitz and rapid here.
This is rapid:
Avg Rating 806.75
And this is blitz:
And this is blitz:
Avg Rating 819.71
So on average it is pretty similar. One other thing. Blitz is played by titled players, rapid is rarely played by titled players. This is one of the reasons why sub 2 000 rated people tend to have bigger rapid rating. Titled players take a lot of points, and the lower level we are, the more points they take from us. It is like a pyramid scheme, if I may use the analogy.
If you look at FIDE rating it is a different story, some people have better classical, some have better blitz FIDE rating. That is simply because rating pools tend to be similar. Here, rapid and blitz pools are not the same because in one of the pools highest rated people almost do not participate (some do from time to time).
This is why you shouldn't really compare your rapid and blitz rating, pools are pretty different.
Did you read the last paragraph from my post you quoted? Your explanation was not needed lmao. Also don't forget, slow chess is what is recommended for beginners, for good reason. So there are many reasons why the "competition is weaker".
Also just to point out if you look at the top of the curve in the graph, most players are about 100-200 points lower in blitz compared to the rapid rating.
In any case, as you can see, on average, ratings are almost the same. Actually blitz rating is a little higher (which is a bit of a surprise for me). Yes, slow chess is recommended, because learning chess by playing blitz is not good in most cases. How difficult is it to play has nothing to do with it. Coaches will recommend slower chess because that is how it is more effective to learn the game.
Calculation is almost impossible to master by playing 3|0 games for instance. Some people can, but most can't. So it is simply not an effective way for improvement. So no good coach will say to his student: "Just play blitz, slow chess is a waste of time."
It is much easier to play blitz, by the way. Not only that it is mentally and physically much less draining than a long game, but in classical, mistakes will cost you the game in much higher percentage.
In blitz, take you for instance, you hang a queen or a minor piece multiple times in some games and in many instances your opponents don't even see it. Even on a higher level, people miss mate in 1 an stuff like that. Blitz is more forgiving towards bad moves because you have less time. But you've already heard that, you had this discussion with multiple people who actually know a bit about chess.
In any case, most people have a higher rating in rapid then they do in blitz. As the curve in the graphs show.
Did you really say "calculation is impossible" for 3 min blitz? hahaha. I think most players around the world, especially professionals would disagree with that statement.
I only play 30+0 classical when I don't have to stress. When i'm on my tablet lying on my couch and watching tv at the same time. When i have plenty of time to make moves. So I totally disagree. There is a reason why slower time controls are recommended to people struggling at faster time controls. You are probably one of those people who suggest that ironically.
Like the HIkaru quote, "relish the fact you opponent will hang more pieces then you" The "perfect" game would simply just lead to a draw and I wouldn't even consider that sporting.
Calculation is not impossible, of course. But as I've stated, someone starting out will not learn calculation by playing blitz in most cases. And those professionals, their blitz calculation is much more superficial than their classical calculation. Their "work" between the moves is much bigger in classical than in blitz. In blitz they just have to make some practical decision in order to not lose on time.
Yes, I know about your routine for 30|0 games. You've stated this previously. This just means that you are kind of slacking in longer games. And if you are not making an effort and do not really care about those games, of course you will feel this way.
I've already stated why slower paced games are recommended for improving players. As for me, I just enjoy longer games too much. Even 30|0 games are in many cases less enjoyable (even though I had some nice results with those).
I would certainly be bad at faster games after playing slower games almost exclusively for a year and a half. But if I wanted to, I would improve my rating to somewhat respectable level compared to my rapid rating after a while (not right away of course). It would need some adjusting to short time control. I've played some blitz games in the past (not here, except those 3 that are in my history), and you can easily play 5-10 blitz games in a row if you wish (even when I try my best).
Playing more than 1 slower game in a row can wipe me out, both physically and mentally. It reminds me of the time where I would sit for 4 hours for some exam, and my brain feels like it is boiled. And truth to be told, I just can't be as passionate about a game that lasts for 5-10 minutes at most and about some game where I sit for 1 to 2 hours and where I expend so much effort. There is just no comparison.
They will still learn, just not as fast. because as you are admitting, blitz is harder and has harder competition.
Yes, I slack in longer games, because it possible to do so, unlike in blitz where there is no time to. lmao.
We all know why its recommended, because its easier then blitz. You don't have to keep repeating it. And your whole statement that "its impossible to calculate in blitz" is like you admitting you suck at it and prefer classical. Don't you realize that. And the whole fide community who says the same, is insulting societies intelligence and lose themselves respect.
Well most of us play both, and as I've said, the website statistics and the avg player speaks for itself.
Spend the same amount of time playing blitz games and see how wiped out you are. Especially in OTB. Hans Neimans face turned red in riga and his hair got messed up, the guy looked out of breath. Thats how intense it can get. loll It isn't "real chess" unless pieces are falling on the ground lol
On the one hand we have you who is rated 400, on the other, all those chess coaches and higher rated people that stated something different to what you are saying here (and in many other chess related issues). It is fascinating when people with the least skill are trying to prove a point about something they have little knowledge about.
Sure, you are correct about the subject you know nothing about and everyone else is wrong.
Have a nice day.
Nov 22, 2021
0
#34
Arnaut10 a écrit :
Congrats! What do you mean by 2000 is not enough? Enough for what?
You always want to improve isnt it?
Nov 23, 2021
0
#35
PathOfNerd wrote:
RubenIdafeHernandez wrote:
I noticed an interesting trend. Im better in 10 + 0 than in 15+10 . Simply changing the time control allowed me to reach this amazing rating. Right now Im going for the 2100 since 2000 is not enough.
10+0 pool is easier than 15+10 or 30+0. Simple as that.
If your rating numbers in a certain time control are higher than in another, this does not mean that you're playing better chess in that time control.
Yeah, just like 2000 blitz is not the same as 2000 bullet, the 10|0 pool is different than the 15+10 pool.
Apparently the guy who deleted his comments was saying OP is better at 10|0 because he's only good at moving fast and badly, which is silly.
may i know what you are talking about
Nov 23, 2021
0
#37
TheBigBraciole wrote:
Omg... @CooloutAC is sitting there playing countless 5/0 garbage fests with a rapid rating of 522 and a blitz rating of 401 ...LOL. WHY are you playing time controls like that when you're so bad at the game? What do you possibly hope to achieve? Don't you understand you're so bad specifically because you refuse to sit and play real chess?
smh...What a total mouthbreather.
Did you make this account seventeen hours ago just to talk on this chess site
Nov 23, 2021
0
#38
CooloutAC wrote:
B1ZMARK wrote:
TheBigBraciole wrote:
Omg... @CooloutAC is sitting there playing countless 5/0 garbage fests with a rapid rating of 522 and a blitz rating of 401 ...LOL. WHY are you playing time controls like that when you're so bad at the game? What do you possibly hope to achieve? Don't you understand you're so bad specifically because you refuse to sit and play real chess?
smh...What a total mouthbreather.
Did you make this account seventeen hours ago just to talk on this chess site
So did the person above you lmao.
Nah theyve existed over a month
Nov 23, 2021
0
#39
CooloutAC wrote:
B1ZMARK wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
B1ZMARK wrote:
TheBigBraciole wrote:
Omg... @CooloutAC is sitting there playing countless 5/0 garbage fests with a rapid rating of 522 and a blitz rating of 401 ...LOL. WHY are you playing time controls like that when you're so bad at the game? What do you possibly hope to achieve? Don't you understand you're so bad specifically because you refuse to sit and play real chess?
smh...What a total mouthbreather.
Did you make this account seventeen hours ago just to talk on this chess site
So did the person above you lmao.
Nah theyve existed over a month
but no games played? Do you really believe they don't know what we are talking about? lol
I mean it’s more of a comment I don’t care to respond to so I just leave him be
TheBigBraciole wrote:
Omg... @CooloutAC is sitting there playing countless 5/0 garbage fests with a rapid rating of 522 and a blitz rating of 401 ...LOL. WHY are you playing time controls like that when you're so bad at the game? What do you possibly hope to achieve? Don't you understand you're so bad specifically because you refuse to sit and play real chess?
smh...What a total mouthbreather.
Hey @TheBigBraciole if an advanced player said something to you that doesn’t makes you happy and his evidence that his rate is higher, how will you feel? By the way, you didn’t even played a single match in the site. Let’s see what your real rate then we talk if you are really that person who thinks himself strong. NOTE: I don’t know what happened between you and CooloutAC, but I know that the way you talk is not respectful.
Thanks guys. Im glad to see that here you can find healthy people who are happy for others achievements. I wish you all the best in your chess improvements paths.