cause after 1000...the players are grown up, all is more difficult and a victory is 1.5 point, while a loss is 1.2,while a draw is 1.5 again, or am I wrong?
what's the main difference between a 1300 and a 1800 player?
Sort:
nobodyreally wrote:
I never said or implied that a 1300 player cannot be considered a true chess player. That would be really arrogant.
I wrote:
"Somebody that just knows the rules of chess in NOT a chessplayer imo. To me a chessplayer is someone that plays on a regular basis and/or joins a chessclub of sorts. In other words someone who is involved in the game."
So a 1300 player can perfectly well be considered a chessplayer.
To come back to the cooking analogy, if someone loves cooking, cooks most of his food, and still makes terrible meals because he doesn't care for taking lessons and/or isn't gifted, he still is a "cook".
But he is not a good benchmark for the next cooking reality-tv show.
Jul 7, 2014
0
#204
Irontiger wrote:
nobodyreally wrote:
I never said or implied that a 1300 player cannot be considered a true chess player. That would be really arrogant.
I wrote:
"Somebody that just knows the rules of chess in NOT a chessplayer imo. To me a chessplayer is someone that plays on a regular basis and/or joins a chessclub of sorts. In other words someone who is involved in the game."
So a 1300 player can perfectly well be considered a chessplayer.
To come back to the cooking analogy, if someone loves cooking, cooks most of his food, and still makes terrible meals because he doesn't care for taking lessons and/or isn't gifted, he still is a "cook".
But he is not a good benchmark for the next cooking reality-tv show.
That's exactly what I was saying before. The level of playing doesn't matter.
Jul 7, 2014
0
#205
Irontiger wrote:
But he is not a good benchmark for the next cooking reality-tv show.
So, look upon the next carlsen-anand world championship match as a cooking reality-tv show.
'3' & '8' 
JagalTanahAbang wrote:
'3' & '8'
Ahuahuahuahua
Jul 7, 2014
0
#208
compared to a 1300, an 1800 should have more analytic insight (tactics, postional understanding, etc.)
nobodyreally wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
And perfectly capable of hammering an 80 year old karpov.
You probably never played any world class players and analysed with them after the game.
I did, hundreds of times. And you have NO IDEA AT ALL how incredibly strong they are. Even on automatic pilot.>>
I have, only one or two. I do understand what you're saying. However, the blanket generalisation that you're trying to get away with doesn't work. You're trying to concoct a law of nature on insufficient evidence. On our day, we're all capable of playing very well.
It could be that your chess style is more effective against weaker players and those of the same strength. It might be down to style, if you found you didn't make an impact on these people. And some people can retain their faculties whilst others lose them.
Jul 8, 2014
0
#211
Optimissed wrote:
It could be that your chess style is more effective against weaker players and those of the same strength....
my style also seems more effective against weaker opponents. It seems that I tend to beat lower rated opponenets and lose to the higher rated ones!
.
.
.
Jul 8, 2014
0
#212
Optimissed wrote:
However, the blanket generalisation that you're trying to get away with doesn't work. You're trying to concoct a law of nature on insufficient evidence. On our day, we're all capable of playing very well.
You try and find games between absolute world class players (lets say top 5-10) that are older (lets say 60-80) and <2200 players.
You might not even find any. But if you do let us know. I would be very surprised if any of the <2200 players scored even half a point in all of them.
I'm talking regular chess games of course, not simuls or blitz or something like that.
I don't have the time to do that.
Optimissed wrote: Only one or two? You don't know if it's 1 or 2 ?
Jul 8, 2014
0
#213
Jimmykay wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
It could be that your chess style is more effective against weaker players and those of the same strength....
my style also seems more effective against weaker opponents. It seems that I tend to beat lower rated opponenets and lose to the higher rated ones!
.
.
.
Jul 8, 2014
0
#214
Reb wrote:
Having a wife OR girlfriend is ok but having BOTH is NOT !
Spoken like one of the chess obsessed. Don Juan, most of the world's kings, and several Popes, may disagree.
Ziryab wrote:
Reb wrote:
Having a wife OR girlfriend is ok but having BOTH is NOT !
Spoken like one of the chess obsessed. Don Juan, most of the world's kings, and several Popes, may disagree.
Spoken like a man with no morals , of which there are many ! 
500
500 rating points is a big difference . The 1800 will understand chess better and make far fewer blunders than the 1300 and the severity of the 1800's blunders will tend to be less .
Jul 8, 2014
0
#219
Mika_Rao wrote:
Two things come to mind. First is tactics of course. The 1800 sees many more tactics and much more quickly. This is what will win the game for almost any higher rated player (but especially for 1300 vs 1800).
Second is the 1800 has enough strategic knowledge that he'll always have a general plan his moves are working towards.
In contrast the 1300 will make moves in isolation e.g. I want my knight on e4... why? Because it's a central square. Is it a good square though? I don't know, but it's in the middle so I think it's good. And then the next move may have nothing to do with the last move.
Having a general plan will often automatically generate positions where tactics are available when playing against someone who makes moves in isolation.
As someone that falls below 1300, I can say this response describes me exactly.
And perfectly capable of hammering an 80 year old karpov.
You probably never played any world class players and analysed with them after the game.
I did, hundreds of times. And you have NO IDEA AT ALL how incredibly strong they are. Even on automatic pilot.
I felt it through and through and it made me very humble as a chessplayer. Rightly so, btw.