njzuraw13 wrote:
How does chess.com pick who does and doesn't go on the list, the ratings on the list go as low as 1700 and there aren't 10's of thousands of names. why?
What list? The leaderboards?
Top players' rankings database?
Sort:
May 17, 2022
0
#3
May 17, 2022
0
#4
justbefair wrote:
njzuraw13 wrote:
How does chess.com pick who does and doesn't go on the list, the ratings on the list go as low as 1700 and there aren't 10's of thousands of names. why?
What list? The leaderboards?
The top players list and chess rankings lists, the leaderboards has the top 500,000 on the site in each category
May 17, 2022
0
#5
CooloutAC wrote:
The top players list is the FIDE classical ranking, because FIDE considers classical most important. Even though to most of us classical is less sporting and outdated The chess rankings list also include the FIDE rankings for blitz and rapid, where HIkaru is now #1 in both. If you click on the words rapid and blitz at the top of each column it will change the ranking order accordingly.
Outdated to who? Classical is possibly the best test of a player, an exhausting multiple-hour game wherein one must constantly, correctly, calculate deep lines; Testing resolve, ability, endurance, and knowledge.
Time controls like blitz and bullet show who is the most intuitive and efficient, but not necessarily the best player overall
And daily, at least in the modern era, isn't as good to test how well one can "solve" a position anymore with the advent of computer chess, and doesn't require such consistent play as players often have days to play, most of which can be spent resting.
May 17, 2022
0
#6
CooloutAC wrote:
njzuraw13 wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
The top players list is the FIDE classical ranking, because FIDE considers classical most important. Even though to most of us classical is less sporting and outdated The chess rankings list also include the FIDE rankings for blitz and rapid, where HIkaru is now #1 in both. If you click on the words rapid and blitz at the top of each column it will change the ranking order accordingly.
Outdated to who? Classical is possibly the best test of a player, an exhausting multiple-hour game wherein one must constantly, correctly, calculate deep lines; Testing resolve, ability, endurance, and knowledge.
Time controls like blitz and bullet show who is the most intuitive and efficient, but not necessarily the best player overall
And daily, at least in the modern era, isn't as good to test how well one can "solve" a position anymore with the advent of computer chess, and doesn't require such consistent play as players often have days to play, most of which can be spent resting.
Classical is not even a category on this website and its not something most chess players play. The Classical championship is more of a team sport, that requires financial and political backing, and depends solely on memory and prep. Certain players from certain countries have more chances then others. Blitz and Rapid championships are more like sports that depend more on exercised skills like you have already mentioned. Blitz and rapid games are more dynamic and entertaining since the pieces are actually moving under pressure and more games means more chances. Playing the same amount of blitz or rapid games in the amount of time of a single classical game, requires the same amount of endurance and stamina imo.
You can't really do post-game analysis on blitz and bullet as they aren't played carefully or in-depth, they may be good practice tools and sport, but they aren't good tests of a player's skill. In a blitz or bullet, most miscalculations can be chalked up to "oh, I just didn't see that", but in a longer time control, when a player has a proper amount of time to think, their strengths and weaknesses are exemplified.
Many blitz/bullet in the same amount of time as a classical match is not as exhausting because of the previous points, and the longer time control is more taxing on the brain than faster games (perhaps because of the openings of the faster games are more automatic, and need less calculation)
May 17, 2022
0
#7
CooloutAC wrote:
njzuraw13 wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
njzuraw13 wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
The top players list is the FIDE classical ranking, because FIDE considers classical most important. Even though to most of us classical is less sporting and outdated The chess rankings list also include the FIDE rankings for blitz and rapid, where HIkaru is now #1 in both. If you click on the words rapid and blitz at the top of each column it will change the ranking order accordingly.
Outdated to who? Classical is possibly the best test of a player, an exhausting multiple-hour game wherein one must constantly, correctly, calculate deep lines; Testing resolve, ability, endurance, and knowledge.
Time controls like blitz and bullet show who is the most intuitive and efficient, but not necessarily the best player overall
And daily, at least in the modern era, isn't as good to test how well one can "solve" a position anymore with the advent of computer chess, and doesn't require such consistent play as players often have days to play, most of which can be spent resting.
Classical is not even a category on this website and its not something most chess players play. The Classical championship is more of a team sport, that requires financial and political backing, and depends solely on memory and prep. Certain players from certain countries have more chances then others. Blitz and Rapid championships are more like sports that depend more on exercised skills like you have already mentioned. Blitz and rapid games are more dynamic and entertaining since the pieces are actually moving under pressure and more games means more chances. Playing the same amount of blitz or rapid games in the amount of time of a single classical game, requires the same amount of endurance and stamina imo.
You can't really do post-game analysis on blitz and bullet as they aren't played carefully or in-depth, they may be good practice tools and sport, but they aren't good tests of a player's skill. In a blitz or bullet, most miscalculations can be chalked up to "oh, I just didn't see that", but in a longer time control, when a player has a proper amount of time to think, their strengths and weaknesses are exemplified.
Many blitz/bullet in the same amount of time as a classical match is not as exhausting because of the previous points, and the longer time control is more taxing on the brain than faster games (perhaps because of the openings of the faster games are more automatic, and need less calculation)
of course you can, That is a myth i hear alot which you are parroting. You should analyze all your games to see what mistakes you have made so you don't make them again. period. Fast intuition, tactical vision and pattern recognition, are more of an exercised skill then the natural abilities of memory and the resources for theory prep. Which imo makes speed chess more sporting as well.
When you are under time pressure your heart is pumping more and you become more exhausted because of it. Think of playing classical, but always under constant time pressure. When you saw the players at the world rapid and blitz, after a days tournament they are just as exhausted. Now granted they might have more breaks, but as Judy Polgar remarked at the world championship, classical and rapid time controls should be shortened for the players mental and physical health. I don't think people should be playing blitz games for 7 hours straight either.
Of course you can, and should, analyze faster games, they just aren't as clear reflection of skill, and who says one's heart doesn't pump in a classical game? When one makes a risky sacrifice or realizes they've blundered the heart races just as much, and for minutes on end. Perhaps the time pressure isn't as seen in classical, but, in shorter games, the beginning and most of the middle is, or should be, played calmly, only at the end, with about a minute left, does the heart begin to race
May 17, 2022
0
#8
CooloutAC wrote:
njzuraw13 wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
njzuraw13 wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
njzuraw13 wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
The top players list is the FIDE classical ranking, because FIDE considers classical most important. Even though to most of us classical is less sporting and outdated The chess rankings list also include the FIDE rankings for blitz and rapid, where HIkaru is now #1 in both. If you click on the words rapid and blitz at the top of each column it will change the ranking order accordingly.
Outdated to who? Classical is possibly the best test of a player, an exhausting multiple-hour game wherein one must constantly, correctly, calculate deep lines; Testing resolve, ability, endurance, and knowledge.
Time controls like blitz and bullet show who is the most intuitive and efficient, but not necessarily the best player overall
And daily, at least in the modern era, isn't as good to test how well one can "solve" a position anymore with the advent of computer chess, and doesn't require such consistent play as players often have days to play, most of which can be spent resting.
Classical is not even a category on this website and its not something most chess players play. The Classical championship is more of a team sport, that requires financial and political backing, and depends solely on memory and prep. Certain players from certain countries have more chances then others. Blitz and Rapid championships are more like sports that depend more on exercised skills like you have already mentioned. Blitz and rapid games are more dynamic and entertaining since the pieces are actually moving under pressure and more games means more chances. Playing the same amount of blitz or rapid games in the amount of time of a single classical game, requires the same amount of endurance and stamina imo.
You can't really do post-game analysis on blitz and bullet as they aren't played carefully or in-depth, they may be good practice tools and sport, but they aren't good tests of a player's skill. In a blitz or bullet, most miscalculations can be chalked up to "oh, I just didn't see that", but in a longer time control, when a player has a proper amount of time to think, their strengths and weaknesses are exemplified.
Many blitz/bullet in the same amount of time as a classical match is not as exhausting because of the previous points, and the longer time control is more taxing on the brain than faster games (perhaps because of the openings of the faster games are more automatic, and need less calculation)
of course you can, That is a myth i hear alot which you are parroting. You should analyze all your games to see what mistakes you have made so you don't make them again. period. Fast intuition, tactical vision and pattern recognition, are more of an exercised skill then the natural abilities of memory and the resources for theory prep. Which imo makes speed chess more sporting as well.
When you are under time pressure your heart is pumping more and you become more exhausted because of it. Think of playing classical, but always under constant time pressure. When you saw the players at the world rapid and blitz, after a days tournament they are just as exhausted. Now granted they might have more breaks, but as Judy Polgar remarked at the world championship, classical and rapid time controls should be shortened for the players mental and physical health. I don't think people should be playing blitz games for 7 hours straight either.
Of course you can, and should, analyze faster games, they just aren't as clear reflection of skill, and who says one's heart doesn't pump in a classical game? When one makes a risky sacrifice or realizes they've blundered the heart races just as much, and for minutes on end. Perhaps the time pressure isn't as seen in classical, but, in shorter games, the beginning and most of the middle is, or should be, played calmly, only at the end, with about a minute left, does the heart begin to race
Like GM Finegold said your accuracy is only in relation to your opponents moves. I just got a 100 accuracy in my last 30 minute rapid game. But its meaningless and is not a reflection of my skill. Chess is a competition between players. So your skill is determined by the level of player you beat, and that is the goal. It doesn't matter what time control you are playing, or how many blunders you make, as long as you beat your opponent.
To quote Levon Aronian "Blitz isn't about making the correct move, its about posing the hardest questions to your opponent" To quote Hikaru Nakamura "Don't dwell on the fact you will make more blunders in bullet, relish in the fact you will win more games by making less bunders then your opponent"
Chess like any sport is a young mans game. To me the "practice" is the slowest time controls which is what we recommend most beginners play to learn chess, because blitz and bullet will be too hard for them to play. So imo I think you are holding on to outdated beliefs instilled in you by older players indoctrinated with longtime tradition. It wasn't until the 19th century that clocks were even introduced into chess at all, and it was to make the game more sporting. As I have said classical isnt' even a category here because people think it is for cheaters. Many past champions like Capablanca and Fischer have said as theory gets more advanced the less viable chess will be as a sport. Many more GM's say that today.
IMO Speedchess is the future of the sport, because Human error is needed for a game to be sporting.
Beating one's opponent isn't truly the goal of playing, playing only to win, and being satisfied in a cheap victory will only hinder improvement; winning cheaply, pulling a victory from the jaws of total loss, not by your own skill, but by virtue of your opponent's failure, should not be considered something to relish in.
Furthermore, the presence or absence of longer controls on the site aren't reflective of their viability as a time control, only a reflection of the different formatting and playerbase that online chess attracts.
And the notion that one would only think classical is better is because of older player's dogma is ridiculous, such conclusions can be reached w/o outside influence. I, for example, never talk to, or play against, older players, not out of any prejudice, but because I know very few, and those I do know, I do not speak with often; My conclusion that classical is a better test of a player is formed from my analysis of the playing, players, attributes, and my own experience.
I don't form these conclusions because of a slow playstyle, nor because I am a patient, careful person, my greatest failure in games is my impatience and inability to think on a position for long periods. I am a very fast player, and have adhd, focusing on a singular thing for hours on end does not suit me, and, in many instances, borders on torture.
May 17, 2022
0
#9
CooloutAC wrote:
njzuraw13 wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
njzuraw13 wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
njzuraw13 wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
njzuraw13 wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
The top players list is the FIDE classical ranking, because FIDE considers classical most important. Even though to most of us classical is less sporting and outdated The chess rankings list also include the FIDE rankings for blitz and rapid, where HIkaru is now #1 in both. If you click on the words rapid and blitz at the top of each column it will change the ranking order accordingly.
Outdated to who? Classical is possibly the best test of a player, an exhausting multiple-hour game wherein one must constantly, correctly, calculate deep lines; Testing resolve, ability, endurance, and knowledge.
Time controls like blitz and bullet show who is the most intuitive and efficient, but not necessarily the best player overall
And daily, at least in the modern era, isn't as good to test how well one can "solve" a position anymore with the advent of computer chess, and doesn't require such consistent play as players often have days to play, most of which can be spent resting.
Classical is not even a category on this website and its not something most chess players play. The Classical championship is more of a team sport, that requires financial and political backing, and depends solely on memory and prep. Certain players from certain countries have more chances then others. Blitz and Rapid championships are more like sports that depend more on exercised skills like you have already mentioned. Blitz and rapid games are more dynamic and entertaining since the pieces are actually moving under pressure and more games means more chances. Playing the same amount of blitz or rapid games in the amount of time of a single classical game, requires the same amount of endurance and stamina imo.
You can't really do post-game analysis on blitz and bullet as they aren't played carefully or in-depth, they may be good practice tools and sport, but they aren't good tests of a player's skill. In a blitz or bullet, most miscalculations can be chalked up to "oh, I just didn't see that", but in a longer time control, when a player has a proper amount of time to think, their strengths and weaknesses are exemplified.
Many blitz/bullet in the same amount of time as a classical match is not as exhausting because of the previous points, and the longer time control is more taxing on the brain than faster games (perhaps because of the openings of the faster games are more automatic, and need less calculation)
of course you can, That is a myth i hear alot which you are parroting. You should analyze all your games to see what mistakes you have made so you don't make them again. period. Fast intuition, tactical vision and pattern recognition, are more of an exercised skill then the natural abilities of memory and the resources for theory prep. Which imo makes speed chess more sporting as well.
When you are under time pressure your heart is pumping more and you become more exhausted because of it. Think of playing classical, but always under constant time pressure. When you saw the players at the world rapid and blitz, after a days tournament they are just as exhausted. Now granted they might have more breaks, but as Judy Polgar remarked at the world championship, classical and rapid time controls should be shortened for the players mental and physical health. I don't think people should be playing blitz games for 7 hours straight either.
Of course you can, and should, analyze faster games, they just aren't as clear reflection of skill, and who says one's heart doesn't pump in a classical game? When one makes a risky sacrifice or realizes they've blundered the heart races just as much, and for minutes on end. Perhaps the time pressure isn't as seen in classical, but, in shorter games, the beginning and most of the middle is, or should be, played calmly, only at the end, with about a minute left, does the heart begin to race
Like GM Finegold said your accuracy is only in relation to your opponents moves. I just got a 100 accuracy in my last 30 minute rapid game. But its meaningless and is not a reflection of my skill. Chess is a competition between players. So your skill is determined by the level of player you beat, and that is the goal. It doesn't matter what time control you are playing, or how many blunders you make, as long as you beat your opponent.
To quote Levon Aronian "Blitz isn't about making the correct move, its about posing the hardest questions to your opponent" To quote Hikaru Nakamura "Don't dwell on the fact you will make more blunders in bullet, relish in the fact you will win more games by making less bunders then your opponent"
Chess like any sport is a young mans game. To me the "practice" is the slowest time controls which is what we recommend most beginners play to learn chess, because blitz and bullet will be too hard for them to play. So imo I think you are holding on to outdated beliefs instilled in you by older players indoctrinated with longtime tradition. It wasn't until the 19th century that clocks were even introduced into chess at all, and it was to make the game more sporting. As I have said classical isnt' even a category here because people think it is for cheaters. Many past champions like Capablanca and Fischer have said as theory gets more advanced the less viable chess will be as a sport. Many more GM's say that today.
IMO Speedchess is the future of the sport, because Human error is needed for a game to be sporting.
Beating one's opponent isn't truly the goal of playing, playing only to win, and being satisfied in a cheap victory will only hinder improvement; winning cheaply, pulling a victory from the jaws of total loss, not by your own skill, but by virtue of your opponent's failure, should not be considered something to relish in.
Furthermore, the presence or absence of longer controls on the site aren't reflective of their viability as a time control, only a reflection of the different formatting and playerbase that online chess attracts.
And the notion that one would only think classical is better is because of older player's dogma is ridiculous, such conclusions can be reached w/o outside influence. I, for example, never talk to, or play against, older players, not out of any prejudice, but because I know very few, and those I do know, I do not speak with often; My conclusion that classical is a better test of a player is formed from my analysis of the playing, players, attributes, and my own experience.
I don't form these conclusions because of a slow playstyle, nor because I am a patient, careful person, my greatest failure in games is my impatience and inability to think on a position for long periods. I am a very fast player, and have adhd, focusing on a singular thing for hours on end does not suit me, and, in many instances, borders on torture.
That is the goal of any sport, and unlike you apparenlty, i treat chess like a competitive sport. It is absolutely something to relish in, comeback victories are some of the most exciting things in sports and why speed chess is more exciting then classical. And what separate pros from amateurs is consistency.
Interesting you say this, because again classical isn't even a category on this website, Where the widest skillgap and preferred game mode of GM's, as Nepo himself said at the world championship, is bullet. That could be considered where the hardest competition is. Because again, its not about the time control or accuracy on the board, its about the competition that determines your level of skill. The average player on this website more consistently has a higher rapid rating then blitz rating for example.
And well then, its a shame that you torture yourself over this notion that you should.
Not simply comeback victories, cheap ones, victories where your opponent did something beneath them.
Classical isn't torture, it's chess
May 17, 2022
0
#10
CooloutAC wrote:
njzuraw13 wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
njzuraw13 wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
njzuraw13 wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
njzuraw13 wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
njzuraw13 wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
The top players list is the FIDE classical ranking, because FIDE considers classical most important. Even though to most of us classical is less sporting and outdated The chess rankings list also include the FIDE rankings for blitz and rapid, where HIkaru is now #1 in both. If you click on the words rapid and blitz at the top of each column it will change the ranking order accordingly.
Outdated to who? Classical is possibly the best test of a player, an exhausting multiple-hour game wherein one must constantly, correctly, calculate deep lines; Testing resolve, ability, endurance, and knowledge.
Time controls like blitz and bullet show who is the most intuitive and efficient, but not necessarily the best player overall
And daily, at least in the modern era, isn't as good to test how well one can "solve" a position anymore with the advent of computer chess, and doesn't require such consistent play as players often have days to play, most of which can be spent resting.
Classical is not even a category on this website and its not something most chess players play. The Classical championship is more of a team sport, that requires financial and political backing, and depends solely on memory and prep. Certain players from certain countries have more chances then others. Blitz and Rapid championships are more like sports that depend more on exercised skills like you have already mentioned. Blitz and rapid games are more dynamic and entertaining since the pieces are actually moving under pressure and more games means more chances. Playing the same amount of blitz or rapid games in the amount of time of a single classical game, requires the same amount of endurance and stamina imo.
You can't really do post-game analysis on blitz and bullet as they aren't played carefully or in-depth, they may be good practice tools and sport, but they aren't good tests of a player's skill. In a blitz or bullet, most miscalculations can be chalked up to "oh, I just didn't see that", but in a longer time control, when a player has a proper amount of time to think, their strengths and weaknesses are exemplified.
Many blitz/bullet in the same amount of time as a classical match is not as exhausting because of the previous points, and the longer time control is more taxing on the brain than faster games (perhaps because of the openings of the faster games are more automatic, and need less calculation)
of course you can, That is a myth i hear alot which you are parroting. You should analyze all your games to see what mistakes you have made so you don't make them again. period. Fast intuition, tactical vision and pattern recognition, are more of an exercised skill then the natural abilities of memory and the resources for theory prep. Which imo makes speed chess more sporting as well.
When you are under time pressure your heart is pumping more and you become more exhausted because of it. Think of playing classical, but always under constant time pressure. When you saw the players at the world rapid and blitz, after a days tournament they are just as exhausted. Now granted they might have more breaks, but as Judy Polgar remarked at the world championship, classical and rapid time controls should be shortened for the players mental and physical health. I don't think people should be playing blitz games for 7 hours straight either.
Of course you can, and should, analyze faster games, they just aren't as clear reflection of skill, and who says one's heart doesn't pump in a classical game? When one makes a risky sacrifice or realizes they've blundered the heart races just as much, and for minutes on end. Perhaps the time pressure isn't as seen in classical, but, in shorter games, the beginning and most of the middle is, or should be, played calmly, only at the end, with about a minute left, does the heart begin to race
Like GM Finegold said your accuracy is only in relation to your opponents moves. I just got a 100 accuracy in my last 30 minute rapid game. But its meaningless and is not a reflection of my skill. Chess is a competition between players. So your skill is determined by the level of player you beat, and that is the goal. It doesn't matter what time control you are playing, or how many blunders you make, as long as you beat your opponent.
To quote Levon Aronian "Blitz isn't about making the correct move, its about posing the hardest questions to your opponent" To quote Hikaru Nakamura "Don't dwell on the fact you will make more blunders in bullet, relish in the fact you will win more games by making less bunders then your opponent"
Chess like any sport is a young mans game. To me the "practice" is the slowest time controls which is what we recommend most beginners play to learn chess, because blitz and bullet will be too hard for them to play. So imo I think you are holding on to outdated beliefs instilled in you by older players indoctrinated with longtime tradition. It wasn't until the 19th century that clocks were even introduced into chess at all, and it was to make the game more sporting. As I have said classical isnt' even a category here because people think it is for cheaters. Many past champions like Capablanca and Fischer have said as theory gets more advanced the less viable chess will be as a sport. Many more GM's say that today.
IMO Speedchess is the future of the sport, because Human error is needed for a game to be sporting.
Beating one's opponent isn't truly the goal of playing, playing only to win, and being satisfied in a cheap victory will only hinder improvement; winning cheaply, pulling a victory from the jaws of total loss, not by your own skill, but by virtue of your opponent's failure, should not be considered something to relish in.
Furthermore, the presence or absence of longer controls on the site aren't reflective of their viability as a time control, only a reflection of the different formatting and playerbase that online chess attracts.
And the notion that one would only think classical is better is because of older player's dogma is ridiculous, such conclusions can be reached w/o outside influence. I, for example, never talk to, or play against, older players, not out of any prejudice, but because I know very few, and those I do know, I do not speak with often; My conclusion that classical is a better test of a player is formed from my analysis of the playing, players, attributes, and my own experience.
I don't form these conclusions because of a slow playstyle, nor because I am a patient, careful person, my greatest failure in games is my impatience and inability to think on a position for long periods. I am a very fast player, and have adhd, focusing on a singular thing for hours on end does not suit me, and, in many instances, borders on torture.
That is the goal of any sport, and unlike you apparenlty, i treat chess like a competitive sport. It is absolutely something to relish in, comeback victories are some of the most exciting things in sports and why speed chess is more exciting then classical. And what separate pros from amateurs is consistency.
Interesting you say this, because again classical isn't even a category on this website, Where the widest skillgap and preferred game mode of GM's, as Nepo himself said at the world championship, is bullet. That could be considered where the hardest competition is. Because again, its not about the time control or accuracy on the board, its about the competition that determines your level of skill. The average player on this website more consistently has a higher rapid rating then blitz rating for example.
And well then, its a shame that you torture yourself over this notion that you should.
Not simply comeback victories, cheap ones, victories where your opponent did something beneath them.
Classical isn't torture, it's chess
You tell yourself its something "beneath" them, to convince yourself that you were the better player even though you lost. Or to convince yourself that classical is the superior game mode. But You are simply lying to yourself my friend. Its all personal preference and the different time management requires different strategies. Chess isn't about accuracy, its a competitive sport about beating your opponent. And if it was such a cheap win it should be easy for everyone to do it consistently. But the fact is there are separate skill ratings, because it is not.
So when a guy like Nihal Sarin consistently turns losing positions around in the end game when scrambling under time pressure, its what makes him an awe inspiring amazing player.
And my friend, you were the one who used the word torture, not me. I simply said you should not torture yourself just because you think you should.
Knowing they're the better player, seeing that the entire game you were losing, just to come back from a blunder someone of their skill wouldn't normally make that is satisfying? As with any sport, winning isn't always good, having your opponents only lose because they made a mistake they shouldn't have isn't good. In sports one should always strive, not to win, but to be better than before. Cheap victories, born from a blunder, are not victories at all, but a flimsy win, a point in your name, meaningless because it was not earned.
In the same way one can lose a game, but not actually lose overall. The first classical tournament I played, I was worried I would be horrifically beaten and would lose because of my impatience, instead, in the first game of the tournament I was paired with the person I play against the most at my club, a player at a much higher skill level than me, in this game, for the first 20 or so moves, I played near-flawlessly, I had the advantage towards the late-middlegame. All of this was thrown away on 1 singular move, I blundered a piece, and, of course, he found it, being down a piece, I went on to lose. In this game, I technically lost, my opponent got the point, but it wasn't a defeat, it was a great game, and proved I could play high-level classical chess, even as impacient as I am. This was not a loss for him either, he both won, and played a great game, the truest of victories.
And a player like Nahil Sarin pulling victories from lost positions is not the same, he doesn't win because his opponent hangs a backrank in 3 or a queen in 1.
May 17, 2022
0
#11
CooloutAC wrote:
njzuraw13 wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
njzuraw13 wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
njzuraw13 wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
njzuraw13 wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
njzuraw13 wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
njzuraw13 wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
The top players list is the FIDE classical ranking, because FIDE considers classical most important. Even though to most of us classical is less sporting and outdated The chess rankings list also include the FIDE rankings for blitz and rapid, where HIkaru is now #1 in both. If you click on the words rapid and blitz at the top of each column it will change the ranking order accordingly.
Outdated to who? Classical is possibly the best test of a player, an exhausting multiple-hour game wherein one must constantly, correctly, calculate deep lines; Testing resolve, ability, endurance, and knowledge.
Time controls like blitz and bullet show who is the most intuitive and efficient, but not necessarily the best player overall
And daily, at least in the modern era, isn't as good to test how well one can "solve" a position anymore with the advent of computer chess, and doesn't require such consistent play as players often have days to play, most of which can be spent resting.
Classical is not even a category on this website and its not something most chess players play. The Classical championship is more of a team sport, that requires financial and political backing, and depends solely on memory and prep. Certain players from certain countries have more chances then others. Blitz and Rapid championships are more like sports that depend more on exercised skills like you have already mentioned. Blitz and rapid games are more dynamic and entertaining since the pieces are actually moving under pressure and more games means more chances. Playing the same amount of blitz or rapid games in the amount of time of a single classical game, requires the same amount of endurance and stamina imo.
You can't really do post-game analysis on blitz and bullet as they aren't played carefully or in-depth, they may be good practice tools and sport, but they aren't good tests of a player's skill. In a blitz or bullet, most miscalculations can be chalked up to "oh, I just didn't see that", but in a longer time control, when a player has a proper amount of time to think, their strengths and weaknesses are exemplified.
Many blitz/bullet in the same amount of time as a classical match is not as exhausting because of the previous points, and the longer time control is more taxing on the brain than faster games (perhaps because of the openings of the faster games are more automatic, and need less calculation)
of course you can, That is a myth i hear alot which you are parroting. You should analyze all your games to see what mistakes you have made so you don't make them again. period. Fast intuition, tactical vision and pattern recognition, are more of an exercised skill then the natural abilities of memory and the resources for theory prep. Which imo makes speed chess more sporting as well.
When you are under time pressure your heart is pumping more and you become more exhausted because of it. Think of playing classical, but always under constant time pressure. When you saw the players at the world rapid and blitz, after a days tournament they are just as exhausted. Now granted they might have more breaks, but as Judy Polgar remarked at the world championship, classical and rapid time controls should be shortened for the players mental and physical health. I don't think people should be playing blitz games for 7 hours straight either.
Of course you can, and should, analyze faster games, they just aren't as clear reflection of skill, and who says one's heart doesn't pump in a classical game? When one makes a risky sacrifice or realizes they've blundered the heart races just as much, and for minutes on end. Perhaps the time pressure isn't as seen in classical, but, in shorter games, the beginning and most of the middle is, or should be, played calmly, only at the end, with about a minute left, does the heart begin to race
Like GM Finegold said your accuracy is only in relation to your opponents moves. I just got a 100 accuracy in my last 30 minute rapid game. But its meaningless and is not a reflection of my skill. Chess is a competition between players. So your skill is determined by the level of player you beat, and that is the goal. It doesn't matter what time control you are playing, or how many blunders you make, as long as you beat your opponent.
To quote Levon Aronian "Blitz isn't about making the correct move, its about posing the hardest questions to your opponent" To quote Hikaru Nakamura "Don't dwell on the fact you will make more blunders in bullet, relish in the fact you will win more games by making less bunders then your opponent"
Chess like any sport is a young mans game. To me the "practice" is the slowest time controls which is what we recommend most beginners play to learn chess, because blitz and bullet will be too hard for them to play. So imo I think you are holding on to outdated beliefs instilled in you by older players indoctrinated with longtime tradition. It wasn't until the 19th century that clocks were even introduced into chess at all, and it was to make the game more sporting. As I have said classical isnt' even a category here because people think it is for cheaters. Many past champions like Capablanca and Fischer have said as theory gets more advanced the less viable chess will be as a sport. Many more GM's say that today.
IMO Speedchess is the future of the sport, because Human error is needed for a game to be sporting.
Beating one's opponent isn't truly the goal of playing, playing only to win, and being satisfied in a cheap victory will only hinder improvement; winning cheaply, pulling a victory from the jaws of total loss, not by your own skill, but by virtue of your opponent's failure, should not be considered something to relish in.
Furthermore, the presence or absence of longer controls on the site aren't reflective of their viability as a time control, only a reflection of the different formatting and playerbase that online chess attracts.
And the notion that one would only think classical is better is because of older player's dogma is ridiculous, such conclusions can be reached w/o outside influence. I, for example, never talk to, or play against, older players, not out of any prejudice, but because I know very few, and those I do know, I do not speak with often; My conclusion that classical is a better test of a player is formed from my analysis of the playing, players, attributes, and my own experience.
I don't form these conclusions because of a slow playstyle, nor because I am a patient, careful person, my greatest failure in games is my impatience and inability to think on a position for long periods. I am a very fast player, and have adhd, focusing on a singular thing for hours on end does not suit me, and, in many instances, borders on torture.
That is the goal of any sport, and unlike you apparenlty, i treat chess like a competitive sport. It is absolutely something to relish in, comeback victories are some of the most exciting things in sports and why speed chess is more exciting then classical. And what separate pros from amateurs is consistency.
Interesting you say this, because again classical isn't even a category on this website, Where the widest skillgap and preferred game mode of GM's, as Nepo himself said at the world championship, is bullet. That could be considered where the hardest competition is. Because again, its not about the time control or accuracy on the board, its about the competition that determines your level of skill. The average player on this website more consistently has a higher rapid rating then blitz rating for example.
And well then, its a shame that you torture yourself over this notion that you should.
Not simply comeback victories, cheap ones, victories where your opponent did something beneath them.
Classical isn't torture, it's chess
You tell yourself its something "beneath" them, to convince yourself that you were the better player even though you lost. Or to convince yourself that classical is the superior game mode. But You are simply lying to yourself my friend. Its all personal preference and the different time management requires different strategies. Chess isn't about accuracy, its a competitive sport about beating your opponent. And if it was such a cheap win it should be easy for everyone to do it consistently. But the fact is there are separate skill ratings, because it is not.
So when a guy like Nihal Sarin consistently turns losing positions around in the end game when scrambling under time pressure, its what makes him an awe inspiring amazing player.
And my friend, you were the one who used the word torture, not me. I simply said you should not torture yourself just because you think you should.
Knowing they're the better player, seeing that the entire game you were losing, just to come back from a blunder someone of their skill wouldn't normally make that is satisfying? As with any sport, winning isn't always good, having your opponents only lose because they made a mistake they shouldn't have isn't good. In sports one should always strive, not to win, but to be better than before. Cheap victories, born from a blunder, are not victories at all, but a flimsy win, a point in your name, meaningless because it was not earned.
In the same way one can lose a game, but not actually lose overall. The first classical tournament I played, I was worried I would be horrifically beaten and would lose because of my impatience, instead, in the first game of the tournament I was paired with the person I play against the most at my club, a player at a much higher skill level than me, in this game, for the first 20 or so moves, I played near-flawlessly, I had the advantage towards the late-middlegame. All of this was thrown away on 1 singular move, I blundered a piece, and, of course, he found it, being down a piece, I went on to lose. In this game, I technically lost, my opponent got the point, but it wasn't a defeat, it was a great game, and proved I could play high-level classical chess, even as impacient as I am. This was not a loss for him either, he both won, and played a great game, the truest of victories.
And a player like Nahil Sarin pulling victories from lost positions is not the same, he doesn't win because his opponent hangs a backrank in 3 or a queen in 1.
Again, I have to repeat, you think losing in a winning position made you the better player. IT did not. It made you the loser lmao. If it was so easy to flag people you wouldn't lose that way and players like Nihal Sarin would not have the reputation at being a master of end game time scrambles.
My friend, at the blitz tournament in Riga last year, Arjuns opponent literally made an illegal move and I believe put his king in check . Blunders happen in speed chess and that is what makes them more sporting and dynamic. Nihal himself was disqualified from the playoffs in a tournament when he lost on an illegal touch move. It was a heartbreaker, because the guy was down seconds to 12 mins, literally came back and put himself into a winning position, Then lost on a technicality. It was the first time I ever saw him get mad lol.
Losing a winning position doesn't speak to the skill of a player, at least not on simple blunders, that is my point. I admitted he was a better player in the example. You seem to be stuck on only the outcome of the game instead of the performance within, at least in a broad sense. Winning isn't the point of playing, playing is. Playing poorly the entire game, then winning because your opponent made a blunder that was beneath them should not be something you celebrate.
(Side note, why do you triple-space your sentences?)
May 17, 2022
0
#13
chaotikitat wrote:
Aye aye aye don’t turn another thread into this
Ay, palerino, it's my thread, bucca di bounce on outta here
CooloutAC wrote:
The Classical championship is more of a team sport, that requires financial and political backing, and depends solely on memory and prep.
l did not just read that
May 17, 2022
0
#15
njzuraw13 wrote:
chaotikitat wrote:
Aye aye aye don’t turn another thread into this
Ay, palerino, it's my thread, bucca di bounce on outta here
There’s an off topic thread that closely follows classical is for crippled old birds
May 17, 2022
0
#16
chaotikitat wrote:
njzuraw13 wrote:
chaotikitat wrote:
Aye aye aye don’t turn another thread into this
Ay, palerino, it's my thread, bucca di bounce on outta here
There’s an off topic thread that closely follows classical is for crippled old birds
Thanks, I'll be sure to go yell there too : )
CooloutAC wrote:
Morfizera wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
The Classical championship is more of a team sport, that requires financial and political backing, and depends solely on memory and prep.
l did not just read that
Its what Anna Cramlings GM mother said, and I agree with her. Read her wikipedia article. ITs very political, and there are alot of resources that go into helping a player prep. Its why Russians called Dubov a traitor for helping Magnus in the last world Champs. Its why Russia has dominated for so many years, the full power of their government helps them.
I'm not disputing the fact you need a decent amount of money to be able to hire a team of strong GMs to prep a bunch of lines for you, but saying that it "depends solely on memory and prep" is complete nonsense.
May 17, 2022
0
#19
CooloutAC wrote:
Morfizera wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Morfizera wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
The Classical championship is more of a team sport, that requires financial and political backing, and depends solely on memory and prep.
l did not just read that
Its what Anna Cramlings GM mother said, and I agree with her. Read her wikipedia article. ITs very political, and there are alot of resources that go into helping a player prep. Its why Russians called Dubov a traitor for helping Magnus in the last world Champs. Its why Russia has dominated for so many years, the full power of their government helps them.
I'm not disputing the fact you need a decent amount of money to be able to hire a team of strong GMs to prep a bunch of lines for you, but saying that it "depends solely on memory and prep" is complete nonsense.
Thats exactly what Fischer said, word for word. When players like Capablanca, Fischer, Wesley So, Hikaru, say chess is really just all theory and will probably be dead in 80 years, that is what they mean. When people say they are playing for the "correct" or "accurate" moves they are pretty much admitting this. Like saying the perfect game leads to a draw. Its just simply not sporting because Human errors are what make a game sporting. Without that we might as well be robots and computers. Thats why i like blitz so much, I never considered chess to be a sport until I learned you can play with a clock.
Robots and computers do play, and it's still just as entertaining, the TCEC has been going for years and people still look over games.
And why didn't you consider it a sport?
CooloutAC wrote:
Morfizera wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Morfizera wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
The Classical championship is more of a team sport, that requires financial and political backing, and depends solely on memory and prep.
l did not just read that
Its what Anna Cramlings GM mother said, and I agree with her. Read her wikipedia article. ITs very political, and there are alot of resources that go into helping a player prep. Its why Russians called Dubov a traitor for helping Magnus in the last world Champs. Its why Russia has dominated for so many years, the full power of their government helps them.
I'm not disputing the fact you need a decent amount of money to be able to hire a team of strong GMs to prep a bunch of lines for you, but saying that it "depends solely on memory and prep" is complete nonsense.
Thats exactly what Fischer said, word for word. When players like Capablanca, Fischer, Wesley So, Hikaru, say chess is really just all theory and will probably be dead in 80 years, that is what they mean. When people say they are playing for the "correct" or "accurate" moves they are pretty much admitting this. Like saying the perfect game leads to a draw. Its just simply not sporting because Human errors are what make a game sporting. Without that we might as well be robots and computers. Thats why i like blitz so much, I never considered chess to be a sport until I learned you can play with a clock.
I'd like to see a link to that quote "word for word" from Fischer. He did say you need a strong memory, but to say that the WCC depends solely on that is absurdly ludicrous. And even if he said that, which I doubt, it's a known fact that he was as much a lunatic as he was a chess genius. And you'd have to take the context that he was paranoid and didn't trust anyone to help him with his prep (possibly one of the reasons he ran from Karpov) while the whole SU was teamed-up to beat him. But he still managed to outplay Spassky, Petrosian and other strong masters in some games even after being "outprepped" by them and losing the "memory battle", thus going into middlegames with inferior positions.
People have been saying that opening prep is going to ruin chess for over a century and it still hasn't happened. That would only apply to the elite of the elite, and barely... and even then you still have a bunch of classical GM games being decided on blunders and human errors - as you like to put. Look at the very last WCC where Magnus tilted Nepo with that spectacular game 6 win. I can assure you no memory alone can play that endgame. In game 2, Nepo fell for Magnus prep, but Magnus blundered and was in a lost position, then was able to come back because Nepo is human and prone to human error, made mistake and wasn't able to capitalize the advantage. "solely on memory"... yea right.... In fact, Magnus's prep was not necessarily to get better positions, what he wanted was to try and get out of Nepo's prep but not necessarily with lines where he gets advantage. He just wanted equal-ish, imbalanced, positions with practical chances in the middle or endgame where he can pose problems for Nepo and simply play real calculating chess. If possible but not necessarily, in types of positions and pawn structures that gets Nepo uncomfortable. Even if that meant being down a few centipawns according to stockfish's evaluation. Sometimes he was able to do that, sometimes he wasn't and played safe. But he was actually trying to avoid the "memory battle" as much as possible.
There's only so much you and your team can do with stockfish and Leela at home. But once you're on the board on your own, relying in only your memory and calculating abilities, anything can happen. For example, if you were to face Magnus you could have the prep of the top 100 GMs combined, and play with the aid of the whole Cramling family and consulting a dozen NMs (without engines during the game, obviously) and you wouldn't be able to beat Magnus. Pia Cramling, as strong a player as she is, wouldn't be able to outplay Magnus either once he got her out of her preparation.
So yes, to say that it depends "solely on memory and prep" is ridiculously preposterous.
No offense, but it seems you don't know what "solely" means.
How does chess.com pick who does and doesn't go on the list, the ratings on the list go as low as 1700 and there aren't 10's of thousands of names. why?