Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    25 Mar '10 22:40
    A lot of the first page of player tables are 2300+ now, 18 of them. Is that a record?
  2. Standard member Traveling Again
    I'm 1/4 Ninja
    26 Mar '10 01:25 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    A lot of the first page of player tables are 2300+ now, 18 of them. Is that a record?
    There were 19 above 2300 a few weeks ago...

    http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/4861/screenshot1il.png

  3. Standard member randolph
    the walrus
    26 Mar '10 01:35 / 1 edit
    I think he means 18 legit players.
    Oh wait...
  4. 26 Mar '10 01:37
    #29
  5. Standard member atticus2
    Frustrate the Bad
    26 Mar '10 10:00
    I think it has stayed pretty constant over the 18 months I've played in here. But it's now easier to gain & hold 2300 because the overall pool of players seems weaker. This is partly because of a steady drip of expulsions from the top of the list, offset of course by 'weaker' players climbing through the ranks.

    Then there are other factors. A few of us, myself included, simply resign games to players we are 100% satisfied are using an engine. The (unintended) effect is that I don't lose rating points against these 'stronger' players, while at the same time weakening my own player pool, thereby boosting my 'win count' against 'weaker' players.

    Some rating inflation is occurring too. When I first started out, my 'target' was to reach the first page (top 30). I thought it would be tough-going, and to a degree, it was. Back then, you required a rating of 2200-2205 to enter the top 30. Today and for the past few months, the entry level has risen to 2245-2250.

    Finally, and I need to tread carefully here, I've played 10 of the top 30. It used to be more, but a number have 'departed'. Of those 10, I am sure that only two are not using an engine. Of the other eight, I'll likely resign to three if our paths cross again. That leaves five where I reserve judgement. Scale up my sample, and if I'm right, that makes 6/30 who are clean; 9/30 who are cheats; and 15/30 where the jury's out.
  6. 26 Mar '10 13:55
    Originally posted by atticus2
    I think it has stayed pretty constant over the 18 months I've played in here. But it's now easier to gain & hold 2300 because the overall pool of players seems weaker. This is partly because of a steady drip of expulsions from the top of the list, offset of course by 'weaker' players climbing through the ranks.

    Then there are other factors. A few of us, ...[text shortened]... akes 6/30 who are clean; 9/30 who are cheats; and 15/30 where the jury's out.
    You have to adjust that calculation, since you're not going to play against yourself (at least not with the same nick), and you are in the top 30. I assume you know in which category to put yourself
  7. 26 Mar '10 15:50 / 1 edit
    Hi atticus2

    There is one on the front page who has hinted their profile they are a
    strong player ( a very strong player) but at a recent event they took part in
    their moves were appearing on here at the same as the tournament was going on.

    I'll recap:
    When they were sitting at the board playing in a tournament moves in a
    truly fantastic game were appearing on here.

    This dedication to RHP should be rewarded.

    This player has also a truly remarkable coincidence between themselves
    and a known banned player.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Wonder what has happened to User 291599 (front page)
    and User 277272 (second page).

    There they were happily playing each other when suddenly nothing.

    Both profiles state last move was 75 days 9 hours ago.

    (something wrong here with RHP - this keeps changing with every minute)

    I don't think anything untoward has happened to them. Well I sincerly hope not.

    User 291599 is calling himself User 277272 on

    http://www.chess.com/livechess/profile/chesstyrant

    and logged on there yesterday.

    Just another coincidence I guess.
  8. Standard member randolph
    the walrus
    26 Mar '10 16:52
    At the same time, former top-10 fixture PAWN RIOT has slipped to the 2200's and is in danger of falling out of the top 30. Pretty amazing how much the quality of his opponents has improved.
  9. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Gonzalo de Córdoba
    26 Mar '10 17:03
    As time goes on we should expect to see top ratings go up. New accounts are "created" with 1200 points; they lose points, the person gets discouraged and quits or makes a new account. Those losses will bump some player's rating up, and when the account is abandoned the "lost points" will disappear.
  10. 26 Mar '10 21:11 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by atticus2
    Then there are other factors. A few of us, myself included, simply resign games to players we are 100% satisfied are using an engine.
    I hope it wasn't the case when you mass resigned in one of the octets my logic suggests you thought it would not be 'fair' to compete against opponents 600+ points below you and walk away with a trophy... we go to some interesting extremes here on RHP, don't we - some "rig" their games to advance to the next round, some resign for they believe it's (only) fair to others (provided my above assumption is correct)
  11. Standard member atticus2
    Frustrate the Bad
    26 Mar '10 21:50 / 1 edit
    As I recall, I entered the tourney in error, intending another on the list. But as I was the final entrant, it kicked off the tourney before I realised my mistake. Once I saw the field, I thought for a moment to play anyway, but then decided, as you correctly suggest, that it would spoil other players' fun in competing for the tournament they might otherwise win. So I withdrew. No inference whatsoever on the integrity of the other players in this case. Nor indeed in every case where I resign
  12. 27 Mar '10 12:05 / 1 edit
    Hi Atticus

    I think you did wrong by pulling out of the tournament though I fully
    understand your rerasons.

    (I suppose I could have put this a PM but felt it perhaps best to display how I feel.)

    First of all I bet none of the players would have minded a jot if you stayed.

    The wonderful thing about chess as opposed to most other sports is you
    can get to cross swords with the very good guys.

    What Sunday league team would not jump at the chance to play a 1st.
    Division team. It will never happen.

    But in chess if you are in the right place at the right time then it can happen.

    I'm sure you pulling out will have disapointed the majority of players.

    Getting hammered at that level can have a two fold effect.
    I recall when I was starting out watching my ideas hit brick walls and getting
    smashed just made me more and more determined to get better.

    Some may sulk and stay where they are. Others (even if it was just one) will
    learn and improve. Especially with a few words of encouragement.

    I have no qualms about playing players 600 points below me.

    OK they are challenges and no trophies at stake I do it simply for the
    pleasure of playing. (and my one grading point)

    I also see it as a 'duty' (if I can resist the temptation to set a wee trap) to play
    as instructive as possible and after each game I give PM's and PM's of feedback
    which bar one case (who later appologised) has always been gratefully accepted.

    I get PM's from guys I played ages ago showing me a won game where they used
    something I had given them.

    So by pulling out and not giving a few hints as to why they lost you have
    missed out on the wee buzz this gives you.

    Also Atticus these games are fun and you are dipping out on hourse of pleasure
    looking for cute finishes and wins.

    It also keeps you sharp tactically.

    Some of these guys don't care who you are (good) and sac like nutters.

    What would you rather be doing?

    Playing against some faceless 'no profile - non poster'.
    Shifting wood about trying to capatlise on some weak square with the
    thought ALWAYS at the back of your mind. "This is pointless, I'm playing a box."

    Or using the pieces for what they were designed for. 'Saccing and Trapping.'
    against a lad who plays chess simply for the sheer love of the game and,
    judging from the responses, is only to happy to play you.

    I recently played Uncle Tosh (1395) User 495654.
    What an interesing character he is.

    After the game in our pleasant PM's I appologised for not playing the best move here.



    I played quickly Bxd5 because I liked the idea of an extra Knght on d5 to sac on f6
    (which I did - unwritten rule when playing these lads, if you win a piece you must sac it back).

    However the moment I sent it I saw exf6 follwed by Qg4 was much better,
    more instructive.

    And (I've started, so I'll finish) you can try out all those gambits you learned as
    a lad but never play v the good guys.

    You also pick up ideas and shots. I have stored a few ideas.

    One is a 100% cracker and will be the TN of the decade, it's in a standard
    book line and I'm waiting for the chance to spring it.
    I got that idea from a 1300 player. He never played it right away but 2 moves
    later, I got to thinking what if he had tried that earlier.
    It looked interesting. It is. Very interesting

    So Atticus, I think you should challenge all those players who were robbed
    of a chance to play a genuine clean big gun (there are so few about).

    You will enjoy it, and you do get your 1 grading point.

    GP.
  13. Standard member atticus2
    Frustrate the Bad
    27 Mar '10 17:26
    Yes, I take the point. And to be fair to the other players in the Octet in question, while I explained my reasons for resigning, a number did ask me to stay for the very purposes you describe.

    So I did pause and give thought to the matter. In an Octet where I'm top seed by 500-600 points, I'm going to win the tournament. I should win every game; it shouldn't even be close. OK, I might get careless, cocky, whatever - but not enough to lose the tournament. True for any 2300+ player.

    So as a competitive experience, the Octet is a dead duck for the other seven players - and surely they deserve better than that. In fact they deserve a sporting chance of winning. That's why sport is sport, and why shooting fish in a barrel isn't sport. It's about having a fair chance, about fair competition. It's not about bullying, or winning at any cost, or trophy-hunting, or ego-massaging. At least, not for me anyway.

    So if playing wouldn't be very sporting, could it have some other benefits? I think this is what GP is getting at. Might it be educative? Certainly some of the Octet seemed to think so: I was denying them the chance to play a 2300 player which, presumably, they were looking forward to. But what of the others in the Octet who hadn't expressed an opinion? They deserve some consideration. What if they minded rather a lot having their tournament 'spoiled' by a player they could never beat? It's a hard call, but I think I called it right by resigning - for the right reasons.

    Do 2300+ players have a duty to help weaker players improve by playing them? Personally I think we do, up to a point - but I bet I'm in a small minority. In fact I do help already. Rick, clan leader for Chaos Theory clan, invited me to act as a tutor to his clan members. I don't play for the clan but I do help people analyse study positions in their private forum. We worked on the Lucena position last week. This week, it's about triangulation in pawn endings. Basic technique that many players lack.

    Finally, I'm open to an Octet with 1800-2000 players where all agree in advance they would like my involvement. If someone wants to organise it, that's fine

    D
  14. 27 Mar '10 17:49
    My 2p worth. I am currently playing in the preliminary round of a correspondence world championship. Do i have a chance to progress? Of course not, I am the lowest rated in the group by 600 points. The average rating is 800 points above mine. Do I wish some of the top guns would give me a chance? No, I hope they don't. I am going to enjoy the games for what they are, a chance to play a truly strong chess player. Next time don't resign, give the guys the chance to learn something from you, even if it involves them getting hammered flat.
  15. 27 Mar '10 18:46
    I sort of agree with atticus. Playing stronger players is the best way to improve, but playing *much* stronger players is just pointless. At our club I played a GM, and I have no idea how or why I lost - it just seemed like his pieces converged in the right place without warning and it was all over. Fascinating to watch, but not partcularly instructive! On the other hand, playing people a bit better than me is very instructive, as I understand enough to see what they are doing.

    Having said that, playing strong players is one of the big benefits of RHP as far as I'm concerned, so I'd be up for atticus' tournament if someone arranges it.