Haha I don't doubt it. I wouldn't be surprised if you hit 1900 as that's where I seem to be heading, and we have similar correspondence ratings. But be careful in the openings once you get into the 1800 range, that's where you can get punished if you don't know what's going on.
Should Adults Starting Out Get Rated?
Sort:
Natalia_Pogonina wrote:
I wouldn't advise any "pure" beginners to get rated. Let's say you have recently learnt chess and play at, I don't know, 1000. You come to a tournament and get this rating. However, if you play a lot, in a few months you will probably be a few hundred points stronger. Unfortunately, by that time your rating will increase by just a few dozen points (not fast enough). Also, you will become a pain in the neck for other players since they will be expected to score a lot of points on you (a 1400 is supposed to score 92% against a 1000), while being of similar strength. Thus, you will damage your career prospects and hinder other people's progress.
It's a tricky question. At first the rating floor was 2200, now it's 1200. When I learnt chess having a FIDE rating was prestigeous (since you had to play in international events and be over 2200). Now, on the one hand, more people can get a rating and feel themselves part of the system, which is good news. But, on the other hand, is the problem with ratings not being updated fast enough, especially for kids.
Well, since I'm in exactly the position being talked about, let me comment. I'm an adult novice, and I might enter a tournament before long and get a rating, not because I'm necessarily wanting to escalate up the rating ladder, but in order to "officially" enter the chess world proper, so to speak. Going to a tournament and getting a rating would motivte me to make the effort to learn tactics, openings, play more, etc, instead of just drifting around online forums and playing sporadically with no real goal or direction.
Logically, yes, what you say is probably true about how to get the best rating in the long run, but that doesn't concern me too much at this point. I'd just be tickled pink to even *have* an official rating. 
Jun 15, 2011
0
#64
Tricon7 wrote:
Natalia_Pogonina wrote:
I wouldn't advise any "pure" beginners to get rated. Let's say you have recently learnt chess and play at, I don't know, 1000. You come to a tournament and get this rating. However, if you play a lot, in a few months you will probably be a few hundred points stronger. Unfortunately, by that time your rating will increase by just a few dozen points (not fast enough). Also, you will become a pain in the neck for other players since they will be expected to score a lot of points on you (a 1400 is supposed to score 92% against a 1000), while being of similar strength. Thus, you will damage your career prospects and hinder other people's progress.
It's a tricky question. At first the rating floor was 2200, now it's 1200. When I learnt chess having a FIDE rating was prestigeous (since you had to play in international events and be over 2200). Now, on the one hand, more people can get a rating and feel themselves part of the system, which is good news. But, on the other hand, is the problem with ratings not being updated fast enough, especially for kids.
Well, since I'm in exactly the position being talked about, let me comment. I'm an adult novice, and I might enter a tournament before long and get a rating, not because I'm necessarily wanting to escalate up the rating ladder, but in order to "officially" enter the chess world proper, so to speak. Going to a tournament and getting a rating would motivte me to make the effort to learn tactics, openings, play more, etc, instead of just drifting around online forums and playing sporadically with no real goal or direction.
Logically, yes, what you say is probably true about how to get the best rating in the long run, but that doesn't concern me too much at this point. I'd just be tickled pink to even *have* an official rating.
Well, I didn't mean to discourage anyone from playing in rated events. It's just a warning. Also, right now you may be "tickled pink" to have an official rating. Once you get it and see that there are 7-year olds or (even worse) people whom you considered less smart than yourself are rated higher, things may not look as bright as you wanted them to be. However, once again, it depends on the person. If you are sure you will never be interested in increasing your rating and don't care for your ranking, it's ok.
' He was indeed, referring to you, and as long as you just play against women, there are going to be those on here who say you couldn't play at the same level against men.'
haters LOVE to hate. It's all they do.
Jun 18, 2011
0
#66
diogens wrote:
Few weeks ago Karpov visited Barcelona an interviewed in La Vangurdia (catalonias most prestiguos newspaper). One of the questions was about why women performed so poorly in chess.
According Karpov the reason is the same than in other sports: chess tournaments are very demanding physically.
I had a personal experience learning flamenco guitar. Flamenco guitar is very demanding physically and that's due to the speed required to perform in time (en compás). Thus you'll see many women performing other music styles but hardly flamenco.
Anyway I would cheer up women to play open tournaments. Playing only with women diminishes their value and I would rather have an IM title that any with a W prefix.
Many people aren't acquinted but before Judit Polgar there was (and is) another women who fought the lonely battle against men. Her name is GM Pia Cramling and she has been seeded between the top 10 females for decades. It would be nice to read a dedicated article about this "Joan of Arc" of chess (maybe GM Julio Becerra could make the honours).
Pia is a very nice person indeed. I played her thrice - all draws. However, let's not forget other women GMs too:
Women who achieved the highest chess title - GM
1978 Gaprindashvili
1984 Chiburdanidze
1991 Polgar Susan, Xie Jun
1992 Polgar Judit, Cramling
2001 Zhu Chen
2002 Humpy, Stefanova
2004 Kosteniuk, Peng
2007 Hoang Thanh, Lahno, Xu Yuhua
2008 Dzagnidze, Sebag, Socko, Zhao Xue
2009 Arakhamia-Grant, Hou Yifan, Kosintseva Tatiana
2010 Cmilyte, Zhukova, Danielian
2011 Kosintseva Nadezhda
Jun 18, 2011
0
#67
I really think it's too bad that Gaprindashvili and Chiburdanidze had the GM title awarded by special decree. It fuels the debate that they weren't "real" GM's since they didn't earn the title when in reality both were strong enough to have earned the title on their own.
Jun 18, 2011
0
#69
ChrisWainscott wrote:
ChessMetrics shows Gaprindashvili as being 2614 in June 1988
Why not use official rating lists instead of spreading rumors?
As you can see, her peak was 2495 shortly after all women (except for Susan Polgar) were awarded with free 100 points in 1987.
There should be some sort of title for using the word "thrice." The first time I've ever seen it outside of Sunday School.
ETA: Oh, and Harry Potter, of course.
Aug 4, 2015
0
#71
I am not a rated player but I would have to say that no, in general older adults (30+) who have never played tournamanet chess should not be allowed to play in chess tournaments and get a rating unless they reach a bare minimum. In other words, a qualification process.
This may make some angry but what other sport allows this? Can you imagine if Major League Baseball just let anyone walk out and play?
The truth is any adult, such as myself, who is below 1700 has no business being allowed to be part of the USCF. It is a distraction from serious play. Classes J-D should only be allowed for children's tournaments.
DereksDiscourse wrote:
I am not a rated player but I would have to say that no, in general older adults (30+) who have never played tournamanet chess should not be allowed to play in chess tournaments and get a rating unless they reach a bare minimum. In other words, a qualification process.
This may make some angry but what other sport allows this? Can you imagine if Major League Baseball just let anyone walk out and play?
The truth is any adult, such as myself, who is below 1700 has no business being allowed to be part of the USCF. It is a distraction from serious play. Classes J-D should only be allowed for children's tournaments.
Your anology is absurd.
A baseball team is in the business of making money and winning pennants. Every player has to be able to help the team accomplish that goal.
In chess, it is just you. It is your right to get your ass kicked at tournaments if you want.
May 3, 2016
0
#73
The analogy is not abusrd. Tournaments are for serious players. If you are an adult and aren't at least Class B strength, you should go find another hobby or stick to casual chess in a club or online chess.
Just as an analogy, the winners and top players in junior level tournaments are usually Expert to NM level strength or above and these are kids.
Furthermore, with the exception of big cities...how many Class C-J adult players are even showing up to tournaments? Who, as an adult, pays money to enter a tournament when they have a child's rating?
Look, I am not trying to be mean, but with the exception of a few (notably WGM Pogonina) everyone else is giving this guy false optimism and platitudes. He needs to stay at home and study and play in clubs and online until he reaches high Class C-Class B strength, period. If he can't devote the time to get better via study, he has no business going to tournaments and wasting everyone's time.
DereksDiscourse wrote:
The analogy is not abusrd. Tournaments are for serious players. If you are an adult and aren't at least Class B strength, you should go find another hobby or stick to casual chess in a club or online chess.
Just as an analogy, the winners and top players in junior level tournaments are usually Expert to NM level strength or above and these are kids.
Furthermore, with the exception of big cities...how many Class C-J adult players are even showing up to tournaments? Who, as an adult, pays money to enter a tournament when they have a child's rating?
Look, I am not trying to be mean, but with the exception of a few (notably WGM Pogonina) everyone else is giving this guy false optimism and platitudes. He needs to stay at home and study and play in clubs and online until he reaches high Class C-Class B strength, period. If he can't devote the time to get better via study, he has no business going to tournaments and wasting everyone's time.
First of all, thanks for your timely response.
Secondly, it's just a game. Elitist ideas like this are very counterproductive to advancing the game.
May 4, 2016
0
#75
There are usually class E/unrated, D, C, B, A, Expert, and Master/Open sections, so there's plenty of people going with class D and C ratings. Those sections are usually a similar size to the class A and B sections, in my experience, and the prizes are generally comparable too.
I should note, those lower sections have the same entry fee as higher ones, but the Open has larger prizes, which means that these lower rated players end up paying for the professionals' prizes, so not only CAN they show up, the SHOULD show up. Even if you're an elitist master--you should want them to show up because they're the ones that end up paying your prizes.
To the baseball analogy--baseball DOES allow less skilled players to play, in their own sections. It's called the minor leagues.
Phelon: I rarely use the explorer anyway; I only started using it at all a few months ago. My repertoire is good enough for the openings I play frequently, but there are a few that I still need work on. I think once I get back into OTB chess I can hit 1700 pretty quickly, maybe 1800 with the amount of study I'm doing. We'll see. =)