Originally posted by SwissGambitI 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.
I was thinking more in the timeframe Jun '08, when you played this game as a 1768 player:
Game 4932508
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. 😵
Originally posted by DanVMYou 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.
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 weren't even here 2 years ago. First game is dated April 08. Once again FACTS rear their ugly head.
Originally posted by wormwoodAbout as funny as this member's approach to the early struggle: User 437675
this one cracked me up. 🙂
Originally posted by RECUVICOh I have missed this GM's posts, they never ceased to amuse me.
[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!-----------------
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?
2 edits
Originally posted by Ajuinthere's nothing wrong with QGA, although many beginning players often believe so. it's a dangerous weapon in capable hands.
What's so funny about it?
gelfand vs anand 1993:
well, I guess this is irrelevant, not being the same line. I just went to chessgames.com and picked the first QGA black won.
1 edit
Originally posted by wormwoodQGA is very much ok,yes.I've played it often.
there's nothing wrong with QGA, although many beginning players often believe so. it's a dangerous weapon in capable hands.
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