When you enter, your rating is 1200. The 'Open Invites' also are
1200, or less (they lost 1 or 2 first games). When I'm wrong: do tell
me. I want to start a couple of games vs +1500. so I can see whether
I will ascend or descend the ladder. I'm no expert, that's for sure, but
I'm not 1200 either. I know so from looking in at some of the appr.
1200-players' games. No conceit from my side though; don't
misunderstand me. We all have to start somewhere. But: I want to
play chess & improve my level & understanding of the intricacies of
chess. There's only one solution: to play at least intermediate or a
little +intermediate opponents. I invited one, but he/she deleted,
though I had made myself clear why I made the invitation.
If all well-rated players react the same, it will take me ages to get
where I possibly, I say: possibly, belong. I also told that invitee I was
rated +1800 at another site, but that this doesn't really tell the whole
& true story about my strength. It's only an indication. I'm eager
though to find out where I stand within, say, a couple of months.
Theory
One RHPr wrote me at the Forum I should buy Silman's 'Reassess
your Chess'. So I did immediately + the 'Reassess your Chess
Workbook'. I also had a look at www.chessbase.com? Great site! Good
tutorial stuff on CD ROMs.
The BIG problem with the rating system is exactly what you are
experiencing. Put yourself in the shoes of an established player on
this site with a rating of , say, 1600. A new player comes along with a
rating of 1200 and tells him or her that their real rating should be
1800. Now if that player takes up the challenges, and in all probability
loses, their 1600 rating wil be severly dented! If however they were
playing someone with a rating of 1800 it would hardly change at all.
Unless there could be some way of retrospectively adjusting ratings
when a player has 'found their level' I think you will find this reluctance
to play 1200 rated newcomers will continue.
I have played many of the top rated players when they first started
and my rating has often paid the price of taking on all comers.
You are just going to have to thrash the pants off a batch of 1200's
and get your rating up to a more realistic level.
Rhymester
yes i agree with you! im playing some newcomers with low ratings. one
even wrote in the profile that the nick had only started to play chess.
well i can assure everyone that these two regardless of their profiles
can indeed play extremely well. if they beat me ill probally lose about
some were between 120 -- 150 points in the four games i really dont
mind its only a game and the way they have played they deserve the
points. however.because of the huge point loss i can understand the
reluctance of others! by the way IF!! i win the four games i will get 4
points!! big difference!! i can lose 150 points and stand to gain 4 if i
win. amongst friends this doesnt matter. id give them some if they
want! but when playing against strangers who make claims of
weakness with no rhp "game history" ??????? the way it works anyway!
if a newcomer plays 10 games with no loss against 1200 players then
the new comer will be rated about 1350 and that isnt bad at all!
depending on "who" you play after that the rating advances very
slowly.till at the top say 1700 - 1800+ it really isnt worth playing
anymore! unless its a friend. so i guess the only thing to do is "start "
over again. and repeat the success over and over again.so in my
opion the two newcomers should advance very quickly and we should
see them on the top ladder in the very near future. good luck to both
of them! i do think now that the points are much higher some
consideration should be given to this issue.! when i joined only a few
months ago the top player was rated at about 1500 to be "top of the
ladder" now its over 1800.i wonder what xeno must think with every
move." if i lose this one ! bang there goes 45 points! multiplied by his
game numbers! no wonder he gets a little abusive at times.too much
stress!!so i think hes quite right to insist a player must have min of
1500 points so as too lessen the strain of losing.i think thats fair of
him.
One way to solve this is that your rating stays provisional until you
have played, say, five rated games against other players who have
already played five rated games. A special formula could be applied
to the results of these games to give you your starting rating on RHP.
Or something like that. The rating adjustments applied to the
opponents could be calculated only once the player gains their
established rating. Or something like that...
-Chris
i think that is a wonderful idea if it can be done.it would allow
established players to veiw performance before accepting the
challenge (itake it to mean that the first five games would be unrated
public games.) it would allow newcomers to test out against higher
players ect.) BUT HOW ! will it work whena newcomer challenges
oraccepts say 10-20 games. which five would apply! the first five
games to be completed ! knowing chess :-) if the newcomer was a
strong player playing weaker opponents could easily defeat their their
opponent in say 15 moves! against strong players it would take at
least 30 moves. so a newcomer challenges 10 opponents 5 weak/5
strong. the games commence. after a week or so the 5 weaker
opponents are deafeted NOW THE GAMES ARE RATED! leaving the
stronger players to pay the "PRICE" OF THEIR DEFEAT.! which would be
somewhat higher had not ALL the games been rated at the start.! i
think your idea has great merit and could "solve" many issues in one.
strange tho. i had a email from another rhp member here ( a top
twenty}last night havent heard from him since xmas .we wrote of the
same type of idea, (he doesnt like the forums.reads but wont
comment!) i hope this little bit of input might help! i sure admire
anyone who can take something like this and turn it into "computer
language!
No, I'm not a veteran, and I've seen the 'Reassess" already on
several books lists. But now that it is recommended by a player who
soundend 'decent', I just ordered it. I also ordered 'The Amateur's
Mind' (Silman?), Kostyev's '40 Lessons for the Club Player and John
Nunn's version of Chernev's 'Understanding Chess move by move'.
These must keep me quiet for a year or two, I suppose. I've known
chess for perhaps more years than you're aged, but I only started to
take it seriously last year, when I also joined an informal club. We
don't play league competition, but organise a club championship and
also several tournaments a year. The atmosphere at the club is just
fine, with also a lot of socialising. But on the Web one can practice
his/her studies.
As to the rating-system, I'm still waiting to be challenged and I've
challenged two of the appr. 1200s as well, But 'From the Western Front
no News'. I'll have to be patient I suppose...
Though I won 8 games or so at another site, lost two (one out of
sheer protest against the 'Kafkaian' rating-rules that you can even
loose points when you win... I had 4 Pawns, 2 Rooks & Queen vs 4
Pawns & 1 Rook... and I resigned the game. Couldn't live with winning
AND losing points!
Bye.
I am curious how someone who ostensibly just started at RHP could
have any idea of "how many years I have aged"! You also seem to be
quite at home here in the forums for such a "newcomer"! For a bit of
friendly advice; throw out your (pop chess) material by Nunn and
Chernev. If you want to make real improvement in the game of chess
and not just learn how to memorize (incomplete) analysis of lines, get
some of the fantastic "bread and butter" books that are out there
like: "My System" by Nimzovich, "A practical guide to endgames" by
Keres, anything by Kotov. These books (if you earnestly work through
them) will teach you concepts that you can apply to many situations.
Avoid all books by Reinfeld, Soltis, Pandolfini and anything that has a
title like "Winning with the French" or "Busting the Kings-Gambit", etc.
These books are written to make money and will do little for your
chess game.
Thanks for your advice, xenophobe, but unfortunately the Nunn book
had been ordered already. But after reading your message, I went to
Chessopolis, Rany Bauer's chess-books reviews. He also rates them
(max. 10) and Nunn's got a 10. Randy usually is not all that generous
with his points though. Who am I to rely on?
As to my seemingly feeling at home for a newcomer:a couple of days
ago I had to read here the comment that I should be playing chess,
instead of being at the Forum; now it seems strange that I feel
comfortable at the Forum... What's the problem? I did indeed first
take a good read at the Forum, just to know what's going on at RHP,
get the 'feel' of it now and I'm being 'blamed' on two juxtapositioned
issues. Well...
I forgot to mention, xeno...
I bought 'My System' in 1980. But it was 'Mein System', in German.
It's still brand-new, because "Auf Deutsch kann ich nur Brot und Butter
kaufen". Perhaps unjustly so, but I have a hunch it might be too high-
brow for me. And if that's so, then it's money wasted, which I can't
afford, to buy the English 21st century copy.
I've read the many positive reviews on it and when I browse through
my German copy, I do FEEL there's something of value in my hands...
It's beautifully edited, blue hard-cover with gold print. Fine
typography, lovely layout... You know...
Just the same with a German copy of Schereschewsky's 'Strategie der
Endspiele'. Reviewed as one of the best books on the endgame, but
the English translation is out of stock everywhere. And I don't like to
study a chess-book with also a German dictionary on my desk. No way.
I am amused Cervenakovas, at your implying that age and
experience are parallel to skill and wisdom. There are far too many
examples of young, vibrant people who easily outdo their older,
pragmatic, narrow-minded counterparts in all endeavor's including
chess. Age is no guaranntee for wisdom, intelligence, knowledge or
anything else. The only thing that is certain is that you are that much
closer to death. It is clear that you put alot of energy and concern into
rating points. I would advise you to instead put your energy into
learning about how to play good chess moves, the rating points will
take care of themself.
Dear Mr Kasparov
You must have misread me. The last thing I wanted to say, is that
age should/is prevalent. I only said that I'm aging, have known chess
all my life, but only at a later age (which is of late) started to take
chess seriously. No more, no less than that. And you are right in
saying that age is no guarantee for experience, wisdom, etc... But it
can be helpful if you've been keen enough to acquire it on your way
down to the grave. So, 'Let me die in my footsteps'... Grandmaster
Bwab would say.
Of course, it is always possible my writing isn't all that intelligible (we
can't all have the gift of the written word), but I NEVER meant to say
that I am playing for rating-points in the first place. If it sounded so,
then please take note, that's not my first & only goal. What I like is a
tough game, a close one. That's what makes chess so beautiful, even
at lower levels. I may sound a bit odd, but I've read a chess-maxim
some decades ago, by a Brittish GM, that there is more pleasure in
losing a tough, beautiful game, than winning one in just a couple of
silly moves. We go for the win, of course, but I think there's a lot of
truth in C.H. O'D. Alexander's words...
Yours
Greetings:
I play in Kasparov as " bismarck ", and my rating there is 2063 over
five games. I didn't play high rated players, i just played people at
the ratings that i was at the time. I started at 1600, and played a
1600 player, and i won, and my rating went way up. I played the
respective rated players until i got to 2063. I think the way it is done
there, is that you get points depending on the level of player that one
plays. I like the Blitz Chess, and i also love playing here, with the e-
mail format. Maybe if the rating was to start at a higher level...maybe
1600 also, thus, giving the better players more of a chance to
progress, and the lower players a little time to try and keep their
rating...maybe with a ten game period before the player actually gets
the rating. I don't know how these things work...i am not versed in
the ways of running a site, or the best way to do things regarding
ratings etc., but, i would like to say that the way these two guys have
managed this site has been outstanding. I for one would just like to
give my thanks, and support. And as for the begging letters, and the "
pawnstar" status, i think it is worth the money; it is a small price to
pay for the service they offer; i enjoy playing here, and i enjoy the
people i meet...and that means everyone!! However, i would like to
see on the Rival game, maybe a list of openings integrated into the
game, and maybe a lessons piece so that one could brush up on the
tactics before they learn openings...and yes, a place for the pawnstars
to play blitz which they can access through the rival game, oh, and
more variations of the chess game; i found some good ones
on "ZDNet Downloads"...there was loads of different variants of Chess
there.
Well, i am going to be going offline for a few months...but, i wish to
pick up were i left off when i come back. I wish i didn't have to, but,
such is life; these little trials are sent to try us!! I hope when i come
back that my nick wont be deleted!! I hope to see you all again!! Oh,
and xenophobe, when i come back, i will challenge you two games,
and two games only...black and white...call it a little test. I never
wanted to fight with you or any other player on this site; i am mainly a
peaceful type guy. So, i will see you later!! But, what happens in those
games are between you and i; i don't care what the outcome is, but, i
hope that it will be between us, and we will make it private!! Do you
agree?? Are you ready to take the field when i get back online??
Well, i will say bye in my native tongue.
Slan...
Imp..
I will be glad to accommodate your little "test" when you come back
and when my game load gets down a bit more. I want to create a
situation where I am only playing 1600+ players (no offence to all the
courageous competitors out there who happen to be under 1600) and
only about 10-14 games or so at once. I will make them all 14 days
each (don't worry, I make moves within 2-3 days......I like to have the
extra time in case something comes up "computer trouble",etc,) and
whether you want to play rated or not, private or not, is no matter to
me. I am only interested in quality chess games. As for your claim
that you "never wanted a fight", you should not have started one. I
didn't even know you existed until you started a "chat-war" with me.
My communication with other RHP members (whether friendly, or
playfully violent) was between them and myself. Until such a day that
the webmasters hire you as "arbiter", you would be advised to stay out
of matters that do not concern you. At any rate, I hold no grudges and
anticipate some good chess games with you!