- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
2 edits
Originally posted by wormwoodIm not saying the difference between an OTB ranking and an RHP cc rating. I mean that if you're 1800 otb and im 1800 otb then our correspondence ratings will not be massively different either.
we already have examples of 300-400 pts difference between CC & OTB here among us. no1 & galaxyshield come to mind without searching, and I'm sure there are others. then there's jusuh with his 400 pts better OTB to RHP. 🙂
I consider myself a lazy player, and I still use far more time on my games than most people I know. most people simply won't be 'using their time wisely'.
Edit: Galaxy has made 418 moves in 5 days which would hint at hes not studying the positions deeply in true CC style anyway.
Originally posted by Bedlambut that's the same thing! no1 has a rhp -400 otb rating and jusuh rhp +400 rating. that's a 800 pt discrepancy right there. sure USCF isn't comparable to SELO rating (which differs from FIDE about as much as USCF, but in the opposite direction), but related to 800 pts that's insignificant.
Im not saying the difference between an OTB ranking and an RHP cc rating. I mean that if you're 1800 otb and im 1800 otb then our correspondence ratings will not be massively different either.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
Originally posted by wormwoodI think you're missing what im trying to point out 🙂 With everything else being equal (ie the time spent on moves, amount of books used etc) then there shouldnt be a massive difference. If there is a huge difference between two people with the same otb rating, 800 points in this case then its more likely down to one of them studying the positions hard and the other not.
but that's the same thing! no1 has a rhp -400 otb rating and jusuh rhp +400 rating. that's a 800 pt discrepancy right there. sure USCF isn't comparable to SELO rating (which differs from FIDE about as much as USCF, but in the opposite direction), but related to 800 pts that's insignificant.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
3 edits
Originally posted by wormwoodIt would be intresting if he could point out how his CC and OTB play is different and what makes the difference. 418 moves in 5 days certainly hints towards its not the amount of time spent on the positions.
and yet he is doing far better on CC than OTB. if he played properly here, the difference would be even greater.
Then we could get someone else with a simlar OTB rating to Galaxy and a massively different RHP rating and compare how they go about CC.
I dont want to sound like im aruging for the sake of arguing, but I really dont see how it is possible that the difference between 2 people of simlar OTB levels will be massively different if they try as hard in CC. It would be intresting to get an actual answer to this.
Originally posted by Bedlamah, okay. but that's not very realistic. 🙂
I think you're missing what im trying to point out 🙂 With everything else being equal (ie the time spent on moves, amount of books used etc) then there shouldnt be a massive difference. If there is a huge difference between two people with the same otb rating, 800 points in this case then its more likely down to one of them studying the positions hard and the other not.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
Originally posted by wormwoodNo maybe its not. But if we think about the upper limit (ie both using all resources available to them,books, time etc) of a CC rating that two 1600 OTB players have they shouldnt be massively different.
ah, okay. but that's not very realistic. 🙂
1 edit
Originally posted by BedlamOf course if OTB player has good analysing abilities he still has many to improve. Actually it proves my point that OTB is much more more than analysing and analysing ability in OTB is not so important as in CC.
I understood your point. I was just showing that no matter how good his theory is it could still be improved on.
1 edit
Originally posted by BedlamThe 2-3 min per a move applies to everyone in OTB and in CC days of study time applies to everyone playing CC, so I dont see how that would make a big difference to rating.
[b]somehow 'patient' seems like the wrong word for guys who throw temper tantrums over reasons varying from petty to paranormal. 🙂
I think anyone who is good must have spent years working away at chess, losing all those games and yes people can get emotional but the good people come back to the game and work at it.
The 2-3 min per a move applies ...[text shortened]... applies to everyone playing CC, so I dont see how that would make a big difference to rating.[/b]
Pardon but in RHP I usually spend much more than 2-3 minutes per move, especially against strong opponents. I play fast only against much weaker players.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
4 edits
Originally posted by KorchI agree with your point but I still think that OTB and CC chess ability are based on their understanding of chess. If Sveshnikov was to play himself, in a Sicilian Sveshnikov, its more likely that the modern day one would gain and advantage against the 1970s one, not because his analytical abilities are better or worse but because his understanding of the positions is better.
Of course if OTB player has good analysing abilities he still has many to improve. Actually it proves my point that OTB is much more more than analysing and analysing ability in OTB is not so important as in CC.
Its hard to say how much difference in ability (and rating) that your point ( Which I believe is that some players are better suited to analytical study than others, that their techniques for going about it is better, this makes them better CC players.) effects someones CC rating compared to OTB ratings, I dont know the answer im only saying what I believe is true from what iv seen. I believe that its Chess understanding > analytical ability, for both CC and OTB.
I should clarify that. I believe that if two OTB players played say a 1600 and an 1800 a few games of correspondence chess. That even if the 1600 had better analytical ability that the 1800 would probably still win a greater share of the games because their understanding of chess is just better in general.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
Originally posted by KorchI mean that in correspondence both players should take more than 2-3 mins per a move, ie studying the position properly and consulting books/databases if any conclusion was to be drawn about their rating differences from OTB to CC.
[b]The 2-3 min per a move applies to everyone in OTB and in CC days of study time applies to everyone playing CC, so I dont see how that would make a big difference to rating.
Pardon but in RHP I usually spend much more than 2-3 minutes per move, especially against strong opponents. I play fast only against much weaker players.[/b]
Originally posted by BedlamI agree that both CC and OTB are based on understanding of chess. Btw. why do you think that understanding of chess does not depends on your ability to analyse?
I agree with your point but I still think that OTB and CC chess ability are based on their understanding of chess. If Sveshnikov was to play himself, in a Sicilian Sveshnikov, its more likely that the modern day one would gain and advantage against the 1970s one, not because his analytical abilities are better or worse but because his understanding of the p ...[text shortened]... hat iv seen. I believe that its Chess understanding > analytical ability, for both CC and OTB.
And its really not easy to say exactly how much difference could be between them. But taking into account that in OTB physical and psychological abilities are much more important than in CC I tend to think that that difference could be much bigger than you think.
Originally posted by BedlamIt’s possible for a given player to have a poor memory for opening theory OTB, but excellent research skills for CC. The same player may have poor visualisation skills during OTB, but is very thorough, etc. when analysing with a board. And again, he may manage his time badly during OTB, but not suffer during CC. etc. etc. Such a player will benefit from the changes that CC offers. But not all players are the same, even if their OTB rating is the same. Maybe some players have abilities well suited to OTB play but not CC play.
No maybe its not. But if we think about the upper limit (ie both using all resources available to them,books, time etc) of a CC rating that two 1600 OTB players have they shouldnt be massively different.
For two players with similar OTB ratings, I think their CC ratings could vary significantly.
My own play in cc will vary quite drastically depending on how much time I spend on a move...it is usually non chess factors that govern how much time I can commit to each move weras in OTB the time is dictated by the clock.
In addition I will often allocate more time and effort to a higher rated opponent. This has been my undoing on more than one occasion when I've been beaten by someone a couple of hundred points or more below me. I wonder if I'll ever learn to: "play against the demands of the position on the board and not simply against the rating of my opponent"
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
Originally posted by VarenkaIm open to the idea but id like to find out details 🙂 You mentioned Cecil Purdy was CC world champion, I tried to find more information out about him but theres only a limit to how much you can find out over the net. Everyone can guess at why people are better at CC than an OTB equal but id rather like to hear the thoughts of someone who is much better at CC than they are OTB or on the other hand much worse.
It’s possible for a given player to have a poor memory for opening theory OTB, but excellent research skills for CC. The same player may have poor visualisation skills during OTB, but is very thorough, etc. when analysing with a board. And again, he may manage his time badly during OTB, but not suffer during CC. etc. etc. Such a player will benefit from t ...[text shortened]...
For two players with similar OTB ratings, I think their CC ratings could vary significantly.