My uncle, is Greg Nowak of Missoula Montana, currently rated ~2200 with rare
playing opportunities to raise his rating (which raises every time he does get the
chance)... any study will show his play is probably nearer the 2400 mark.
I like Greg Nowak, and respect him. But, it is laughable to claim that his playing strength is any where near 2400.
Nowak has been below 2200 since his performance in the 1998 Turkey Open in Missoula. He has played well over 100 events since then. His current rating is 2129. The last time he played in an event that I was also in, he finished 1/2 point ahead of me. His rating dropped by one; mine rose over 40. His current rating is more than 30 lower than it was entering that event; mine is more than 200 points higher than then. We did not play, but I was happy to see him and participated with him and others in analysis of a nice endgame that he won. BTW, he lost to a weak master in that event--a player just over 2200.
Originally posted by Wulebgr I like Greg Nowak, and respect him. But, it is laughable to claim that his playing strength is any where near 2400.
Nowak has been below 2200 since his performance in the 1998 Turkey Open in Missoula. He has played well over 100 events since then. His current rating is 2129. The last time he played in an event that I was also in, he finished 1/2 point ahe ...[text shortened]... nice endgame that he won. BTW, he lost to a weak master in that event--a player just over 2200.
I respectfully disagree.
Fact remains he's still a very strong player. I think in another locale he could achieve
a higher rating than he has had. I won't argue, its silly either way. I just have lots and
lots of respect for him.
Originally posted by Nowakowski I respectfully disagree.
Fact remains he's still a very strong player. I think in another locale he could achieve
a higher rating than he has had. I won't argue, its silly either way. I just have lots and
lots of respect for him.
Originally posted by Wulebgr Real names would kill the forums
That might not be a bad thing.
Real name Jonathan Lavis. I last played in an OTB tournament in 1982 and know that I had a BCF (before the days when the smelly barbarians north of the wall declared independence) grade back then. What that grade was I haven't a clue, it never really interested me that much. For the record, I think that introducing ratings for correspondence chess is one of the worst things that has happened in CC. It turns us all into professionals obsessing over a number, rather than friendly amateurs. My current IECG (not ICCF) rating is 1460ish but bear in mind IECG is one of the organisations that makes no mention of engine use in its rules.
[FEN "8/3k4/1K6/8/4BR2/4p3/4p3/8 w - - 0 1"] [SetUp "1"]
{-------------- . . . . . . . . . . . k . . . . . K . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B R . . . . . . p . . . . . . . p . . . . . . . . . . . white to play --------------} 1. Bf5+ Kd8 2. Rd4+ Ke8 3. Re4+ Kd8 4. Rxe3 e1=Q 5. Rxe1 {Stalemate} 1/2-1/2
And the real solution - White infact does not take any of the pawns.
Note: if 4...Kxd7 then White can pick up the two e-pawns
as the stalemate trap has gone.
I so would've stalemated there. didn't even bother to look further after I saw the black king was forced to get back on the e-file to be checked. nasty trick.
Originally posted by wormwood I so would've stalemated there. didn't even bother to look further after I saw the black king was forced to get back on the e-file to be checked. nasty trick.
The tricky part is that a solver thinks he's avoided the stalemate trick by playing 1. Bf5+ instead of 1. Bc6+
04 Jan '10 02:34
Reveal Hidden Content
Cheating - The Solution
Back to Top