Tonya_Harding wrote:
It's up to each to know their ressources for a given game under given conditions.
True, I am respecting it as a mode but just saying it's definitely not for me.
The curious case of 1200: The Expert's rating
Sort:
Feb 3, 2021
0
#403
nTzT wrote:
I suppose it's just not for me then. Just hate the idea that my opponent can go into some deep line that he didn't even think of himself.
It does not work that way. The deeper the line the higher the chance you will not make the movement they are expecting from their DB. Especially if they are looking at GM games. After you move that pawn instead of the bishop as they expect, their DB will not longer be useful to them, and unless the understand the positional nuances, they won't know what to do with their "deep line".
There's some aggressive lines in some English opening variations that are really fun to play and to know my opponent would avoid all the danger with an opening book/database would kinda just ruin a lot of it for me.
xor_eax_eax05 wrote:
nTzT wrote:
I suppose it's just not for me then. Just hate the idea that my opponent can go into some deep line that he didn't even think of himself.
It does not work that way. The deeper the line the higher the chance you will not make the movement they are expecting from their DB. Especially if they are looking at GM games. After you move that pawn instead of the bishop as they expect, their DB will not longer be useful to them, and unless the understand the positional nuances, they won't know what to do with their "deep line".
Some of that is true, but I look at the databases of games on chess.com when i study the openings and if they just follow the first few lines they avoid a lot of the trouble and there's almost always games with the lines. But yea, I suppose they won't really understand the positions and will eventually show their true worth if they are only copying moves.
But following the lines does give you one advantage. It can tell you when your opponent has played a non-book line. This usually means it's an inferior move so you can spend all the time you need to see why no GM ever played it. Of course all of this depends on your rating vs. your opponents rating.
Feb 3, 2021
0
#407
blueemu wrote:
Tonya_Harding wrote:
Ratings are surely some inflated on Chess.com...
You feel that my 2751 rating was inflated?
... well... maybe a little.
A lot, also I guess Daily won't be the right way to access the strength.
Feb 3, 2021
0
#408
blueemu wrote:
CrusaderKing1 wrote:
blueemu wrote:
As Tonya_Harding pointed out, opening databases (such as 365chess) are allowed in Daily chess, but endgame databases (usually called tablebases) are forbidden.
Do you know any good "tablebase" sites?
The best free online one that I've found supports seven pieces (including both colors, and including the Kings).
KvK – Syzygy endgame tablebases (syzygy-tables.info)
It finds the correct winning path to this position, for example (White to move).
This is a famous position and I GUESS its called Savedana position or something? I don't remember exactly.
Feb 3, 2021
0
#409
Tonya_Harding wrote:
While we are at it, here a sensible scale, as OTB club players would see it:
0-1000 Pre-beginner
1000-1400 beginner
1400-1800 Club player
1800-2200 Strong Club player
2200+ "Pro" players
1000-1400 Chess.com is a "Novice" but 1000-1400 OTB is a Intermediate player.
I’m on my way to 1200
drob317 wrote:
I’m on my way to 1200
THE EXPERT'S RATING!
Feb 4, 2021
0
#412
Optimissed wrote:
nTzT wrote:
I suppose it's just not for me then. Just hate the idea that my opponent can go into some deep line that he didn't even think of himself.
It makes DAILY much, much harder for people who haven't paid for access to databases, that's all. So it makes it of necessity more creative and for people who don't pay for databases, Daily is now a learning tool in a different way from those who have paid. They now have a huge advantage should they choose to use it, whereas five and ten years ago, they didn't, because much analysis was freely available. Partly as a consequence of this, I was 2250 back ten years ago in Daily and in this incarnation, I think 2125. A lot of that is due to openings changing. A lot of the analysis given in the books I might rely on, from around 1990, is completely wrong. But it's good for creativity!
I have access to neither a commercial database nor an engine, but my Daily rating is 2351. So good play can close that gap.
All of this grey area stuff sort of just ruins daily chess for me. Is my opponent using a database? Is he spending countless hours with the analysis board? Has he been going over some other blitz game that has the same position and looked at the variations with an engine etc? I mean it would be hard to resist for them. Just doesn't seem like a fun mode to me.
xor_eax_eax05 wrote:
Just no. That table is nonsensical. For everyone else, I've said it many times before: ratings on this site, especially under 2000 ELO, make no sense. There are 1000 ELO here who are stronger than 1500s (from this very same site) and, for some reason, are stuck in their bracket.
As a player who dwells around 1600-1800 elo in another site which is almost excusively dedicated to Daily time control, I have played ppl here at the 10' time control here who are 1000 and are way stronger than many club players I've beaten. I can give you loads of examples, but I'll just post one. This is a recent victory of mine over a 1980 rated player on the other site. I'm only including the moves and not the site because I dont want my post removed:
To my surprise, guy playing white has a blog. Turns out he was a frequent poster till mid 2019... he's a 1900 +/- elo club player living in Germany.
This is another win of mine vs a 1950 player:
Ok then, let's go and see here the playing / defense strength of 10' rapid 1100-1200 ELO players here - very recent games:
https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/6442456396
https://www.chess.com/live/game/6442184685
https://www.chess.com/live/game/6442159828
etc. etc. etc. I simply have no chance vs these kind of players, they are too strong, even stronger than the 1800-1900 club players I play against in the other site.
It's also quite funny I've recently been paired against a 1500+ in the Arena, and it was an incredibly easy game:
https://www.chess.com/live/game/6418431254
It really felt like playing a 1500 from the other site, you know, the ones who join tournaments with players several hundred points above them just for the kicks? I've faced those.
Now, who's going to claim a 1100 ELO rated from this site is stronger than a 1900 club player? Probably no one. Yet I play them every day here.
So, in my opinion, ratings on this site make no sense and that table is wrong. Maybe once you go past the 2000 elo barrier things start to make more sense, but I wouldn't know about that because my higher ever was 1890 or so.
Oh, and just one more thing. Many years ago when I first started playing chess frequently rather than once in a blue moon, my initial rating after the provisional period was 1200, which matched my FICS server rating ... so, according to this site's score, I've grown weaker ... but for some odd reason I gained 400-600 points on the other site.
You are like "these players so strong", and then you show us a game where you're literally up 7 points and then end up losing your queen, which would leave you what, materially evenish given what else is taken in the exchange. No real reason to resign, there's a real chance one of you will make another blunder and the game can swing again.
https://www.chess.com/live/game/6442184685 From your own post. Such high level play.
You hung your knight, they ignored it. Your own fork came out of a poorly launched attack that was easily blockable. They forgot to defend their pawn. This was just a game where the two of you randomly hung material and sometimes remembered to go after some of it. That's why you are a 1200 here. You need to learn to give away your pieces less often in order to move up.
Feb 4, 2021
0
#415
Stop counting "points", that's engine stuff and only matters with optimal engine-like play. Just because an engine gives a position a certain score it does not mean players will follow up, especially anyone under 2000 ELO. You'd need to play like the engine consistently, and if you could play like an engine consistently, you'd probably be playing top world tournaments and winning them.
And yes mistakes are made, more so in games under 2300. That's not an argument at all. My argument is many players here stuck at the 1200 bracket are stronger than club players at 1900 elo.
Which makes the rating on this site completely useless to gauge a player strength - at least in the under 2000 bracket. What's the point of a rating system if a 1200 players better than a 1900 club player? What's the point if many 1000-1200 players play better than a 1500 ELO? What's the point of the ranking system at all then? That's my argument, not the mistakes that are made in the game. You are missing the point as usual.
Feb 4, 2021
0
#416
xor_eax_eax05 a écrit :
Stop counting "points", that's engine stuff and only matters with optimal engine-like play. Just because an engine gives a position a certain score it does not mean players will follow up, especially anyone under 2000 ELO. You'd need to play like the engine consistently, and if you could play like an engine consistently, you'd probably be playing top world tournaments and winning them.
And yes mistakes are made, more so in games under 2300. That's not an argument at all. My argument is many players here stuck at the 1200 bracket are stronger than club players at 1900 elo.
Which makes the rating on this site completely useless to gauge a player strength - at least in the under 2000 bracket. What's the point of a rating system if a 1200 players better than a 1900 club player? What's the point if many 1000-1200 players play better than a 1500 ELO? What's the point of the ranking system at all then? That's my argument, not the mistakes that are made in the game. You are missing the point as usual.
I very rarely saw anyone here under 1300 being above 1500 elo and this is one case in 50.
But it can happened but it's an exception;maybe 2%?
Feb 4, 2021
0
#417
Tonya_Harding a écrit :
Drop it Marie-AnneLiz, next, he'll try to explain us water is actually dry, Everest is at the Bottom of the Ocean, and Santa Claus is Daffy Duck in disguise.
Feb 4, 2021
0
#418
Tonya_Harding wrote:
2% chances Daffy Duck is Santa Claus in disguise.
Little did you know this has happened before.
xor_eax_eax05 wrote:
Stop counting "points", that's engine stuff and only matters with optimal engine-like play. Just because an engine gives a position a certain score it does not mean players will follow up, especially anyone under 2000 ELO. You'd need to play like the engine consistently, and if you could play like an engine consistently, you'd probably be playing top world tournaments and winning them.
And yes mistakes are made, more so in games under 2300. That's not an argument at all. My argument is many players here stuck at the 1200 bracket are stronger than club players at 1900 elo.
Which makes the rating on this site completely useless to gauge a player strength - at least in the under 2000 bracket. What's the point of a rating system if a 1200 players better than a 1900 club player? What's the point if many 1000-1200 players play better than a 1500 ELO? What's the point of the ranking system at all then? That's my argument, not the mistakes that are made in the game. You are missing the point as usual.
The 7 points was just the over the board point count. Basic material. Beginner level stuff. Don't need to be a 2000 player to convert that into an easy win. You were up a full rook and bishop and down a pawn. Just for kicks, scrolling through a basic eval, your lead was way more than that. There were turns where you had double digit leads and even mate in 3. You managed to blunder it away.
The 1200 rated players are not that great. You playing terribly and losing isn't proof of anything. When you give away free pieces, you lose games. That's a common problem at the lower levels. That's not any kind of advanced chess, that's beginner level material. The 1200 player didn't play very well, you had to hand them multiple opportunities to give them a major edge. They didn't even have to finish the job, you gave up in a perfectly playable position in spite of blundering a queen, which goes to show just how much of a lead you already had.
blueemu wrote:
I have access to neither a commercial database nor an engine, but my Daily rating is 2351. So good play can close that gap.
But you do have access to a database and engine. It's called chess.com and other sites. I am not saying you use them at all. Just wanted to correct that everyone has access to stuff on the internet.
Back in the late 70's early 80's I played correspondence chess (Golden Knights anyone). Yes they allowed the use of books for the opening but books are nothing like a chess database that might be updated weekly or even daily.
I would sometimes spend 4+ hours on a single move studying possible alternative moves on 3-4 different chess boards taking notes like crazy. This in turn actually helped my OTB rating. That said I think few people do this type of effort in today's day and age.
a5 stops white from gaining more space on the queenside which would come with tempo on the bishop etc.
Using a database while playing is cheating.
Not in daily.
I see, that just makes it a joke to me.
I've played over 4,500 games on the other Daily chess site, and I usually don't use their databases. This may change very quickly as I've acquired Chessbase (lol, Im building a DB with my matches).
Trust me when I say, it's not that much of an advantage. You reach positions which are out of the book/db extremely quickly, especially in under 2000 elo games.
I've caught many unaware opponents off guard because I have avoided playing the most common lines from the DB, forcing to think on their own very quickly.
Endgame tablebases such as the Nalimov are forbidden, though.