I've just spent the last 30 minutes or so playing through this game (Game 3633910) and it got me to thinking. There are a lot of players on this site who play games at really fast time controls and consequently lose a lot of games on time which means their grade does not really reflect their playing strength. Who is your vote for the most under rated player you've come across?
Peterh gets my vote! The game above demonstrates that, Yuga is a good player (hell he went on to win the tourney in question!) Another player who springs to mind is Quirine (for obvious reasons, him being a double site champion yet rarely graded over 2000 which confuses the sh;t out of me and a lot of other people too i'm sure!)
So let's have it. Who gets your vote? 🙂
Quirine.
I won some games against him but simply down to him moving too quickly in complex positions (I am sure) and making avoidable elementary mistakes he was well capable of spotting if he took more time.
In other games and even (leaving out the mistakes) in my won games he totally outplayed me.
Originally posted by eamon oThe quantity of games someone has going can affect their rating. Imagine playing 60+ 1day games and you're away from the site for more than 24 hours. You'd literally have to blitz the games as you could be timed out at any second. Errors are bound to creap in under this circumstance, Quirine is such a player i'm sure.
if someone plays too fast and makes errors, they are unlikelyy to be under-rated. thats just bad play.
Originally posted by Dragon FireDon't know if I am under rated or not, but based on in game comments (move 28), I believe I gave you a good game. Although no surprise that you won in the end. 🙂
Quirine.
I won some games against him but simply down to him moving too quickly in complex positions (I am sure) and making avoidable elementary mistakes he was well capable of spotting if he took more time.
In other games and even (leaving out the mistakes) in my won games he totally outplayed me.
Game 3583343
EDIT: This thread is quickly turning into a "Take it to the chess forum - spanky!" thread now.
I am underrated. But not the most. Your performance rating on correspodence chess can vary 500 points (at least with ratings lower than 1800ish) only by your attitude, patience, analayzing. In OTB there all less variables, you have show what you have got at that moment, no bad days, good days, decisions to play seriously from next week etc. I can lose from 1200 here and play at 1700. I think is the same for most of us.
Originally posted by lauseyMy comments were
Don't know if I am under rated or not, but based on in game comments (move 28), I believe I gave you a good game. Although no surprise that you won in the end. 🙂
Game 3583343
EDIT: This thread is quickly turning into a "Take it to the chess forum - spanky!" thread now.
"After mulling over this for ages and almost resigned I realised that I was previously a piece up so now I am merely equal which isn't as bad as I thought it was although my move was still pretty dire. It seems to me 26. NXe4 won fairly quickly but I thought (without really looking) that eXd won even quicker and missed 2 forks because I was not even looking for them. Never the less, well recovered, because you did see them"
I blundered, I gave a piece back, it happens but I was a piece up so I got away with it and you allowed a fork in the end.
I have played loads of players rated 1200-1500 who play really well (1700+) for long periods but in the end provided I don't make a mistake they usually do. Sometimes however they don't and they get a draw.
The problem for such players is they are not under rated until they stop the blunders.
Originally posted by Dragon FireFair point. Shame there isn't a blunder alert on RHP. 😞
My comments were
"After mulling over this for ages and almost resigned I realised that I was previously a piece up so now I am merely equal which isn't as bad as I thought it was although my move was still pretty dire. It seems to me 26. NXe4 won fairly quickly but I thought (without really looking) that eXd won even quicker and missed 2 forks because ...[text shortened]... .
The problem for such players is they are not under rated until they stop the blunders.
Disclaimer: I don't really want a blunder alert, as I wouldn't learn anything. 😕
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexI have played 3 opponents on rhp who have blown my brains out by their genius and charisma
Blanca can produce some very strong chess when he is playing to his full potential - his large list of tournament wins backs that up.
blanca
drangonfire
everyday
These are players who take you by surprise and are innovative
and I salute them
(I would also include moremayoaisse but I thin he had departed)
They are under-rated whatever their rating is on rhp because they showed me
sustained genius
(I used to be capable of flashes of genius, like most players, but these three opponent really impressed me.
However, I suppose, as Nordlys would say, it all depends on your definition of the word 'under-rated'
Is the question totally about chess ?
The fact that I am attempting to be the first person to be awarded two Nobel Prizes (Medicine and Literature) for the same work (a theory of consciousness put in the form of a novel) doesn't count, I suppose, in the quest for being the most 'under-rated' member of rhp ???
Originally posted by Rene PogelThe Nobel Prize is over rated.
I have played 3 opponents on rhp who have blown my brains out by their genius and charisma
blanca
drangonfire
everyday
These are players who take you by surprise and are innovative
and I salute them
(I would also include moremayoaisse but I thin he had departed)
They are under-rated whatever their rating is on rhp because they showed me
sustaine ...[text shortened]... ) doesn't count, I suppose, in the quest for being the most 'under-rated' member of rhp ???