Indeed, a quick glance at the rating graph indicates that you were averaged out at roughly 1700 over about 200 games.
Your low point came from a mass-timeout/resignation spree when you apparently left the site.
Then, when you came back slightly over a year later, you were suddenly a master. 😵
I highly doubt that any rating on a site such as RHP qualifies as Master rating. Any serious OTB player can probably give any of us a quick painful lesson in chess. Only played a few good players on this site, and most are not even first page material. such as Mike Perkins, BobbyChess, Pawnriot, etc.. Very doubtful that you are looking for a serious explanation into why I play better now than 2 years ago, so stick to the subject of this thread and analyse the game, or PM if you're really looking for answers.
Originally posted by DanVM I highly doubt that any rating on a site such as RHP qualifies as Master rating. Any serious OTB player can probably give any of us a quick painful lesson in chess. Only played a few good players on this site, and most are not even first page material. such as Mike Perkins, BobbyChess, Pawnriot, etc.. Very doubtful that you are looking for a serious explanatio ...[text shortened]... to the subject of this thread and analyse the game, or PM if you're really looking for answers.
You don't get 2300 unless you consistently defeat your underlings, though. Somehow I doubt the player I won 2 games fairly easily against 17 months ago would drop a single game to me now.
You weren't even here 2 years ago. First game is dated April 08. Once again FACTS rear their ugly head.
Originally posted by RECUVIC [pgn]3759097[/pgn Most of us are very familiar with Bishop x h7 but is it always as correct as it might first appear? Decide here,1/was it correct at the time and 2/why did an excellent game opponent resign and 3/was that decision correct? This is not for the faint hearted or ocassional chess player,the correct answers are not as easy as they might seem to b ...[text shortened]... ons will provide my own personal answers,but they may not be the same as yours!-----------------
Oh I have missed this GM's posts, they never ceased to amuse me.
I wonder why he stopped sharing his GM level chess knowledge with us, maybe he was ashamed of not knowing how to notate the moves?
Originally posted by wormwood there's nothing wrong with QGA, although many beginning players often believe so. it's a dangerous weapon in capable hands.
To be fair, he was right about 4...b5 being dubious though.
Originally posted by wormwood there's nothing wrong with QGA, although many beginning players often believe so. it's a dangerous weapon in capable hands.
QGA is very much ok,yes.I've played it often.
But he said 4.... b5 is very dubious,at least that's how I understood it.He has a point there although 'very dubious' is perhaps a bit too harsh.But hey,it's his opinion.
edit: maybe we should discuss this in a separate thread.This one's actually about Rudell's book....ehr.....I mean Bxh7 sacs
Bishop x h7-again!?
27 Sep '09 17:062 edits
Back to Top