Originally posted by greenpawn34I must suck bigtime, my USCF is over 1700 but that is also my top rating here. According to that logic, I should be at 2000+ here.
I'm talking about OTB.
Big big difference between OTB and what goes on here.
C.C. players should have a higher grade.
1600 OTB can and should become 2000+ very eaisly (stop making blunders).
Of course cheapo merchants (guilty) on here will hang around the 1800's
(again living proof).
As for Skeeter just playing 1800's - I take your word for it.
I think it has to do with the amount of time I spend on each game, I don't take them seriously enough I guess. My buddy Leboeuf who plays here under that handle, is rated 2025 but I beat him in skittles 2 to 1 and we both are in the 1700's USCF. I guess I should take the games a bit more serious.
1 edit
Originally posted by MrHandWell, 1400, 1600, to a 2300 player we would both be shredded, we neither one of us would play a much better game against him. I might avoid some of the more obvious bullets but the end would be the same, maybe just 2 moves later🙂
If you have a roller skate at 1600+, then I have worn out shoes at 1400.... 😛
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseI think that USCF is slightly lower than RHP. My USCF is now 1030, but bogus because
I must suck bigtime, my USCF is over 1700 but that is also my top rating here. According to that logic, I should be at 2000+ here.
I think it has to do with the amount of time I spend on each game, I don't take them seriously enough I guess. My buddy Leboeuf who plays here under that handle, is rated 2025 but I beat him in skittles 2 to 1 and we both are in the 1700's USCF. I guess I should take the games a bit more serious.
(1) it was pegged at 980 from when I last played as a 13 year old,
(2) I'm preliminary with 13? games since I started playing again a couple of months ago
(3) the night I go to my local club, I usually am lucky if there is anyong below 1700 USCF so it's hard to pick up points if you lose each game!
Anyway, I have drawn a 1500+ and I had the upper hand on a 1700 player but made a stupid move late in the game (G/30 the nights I go...so it's pretty intense). My point...I *THINK* that I will end up closer to 1500 USCF but I'm 1400 here at RHP.
Tough to say though because I'm still learning at a relatively rapid pace (compared to a very slow rate of improvement I expect a year from now).
2 edits
Originally posted by MontyMooseThere is a guy who lives close by me here near Allentown Pa, his handle is Vortex of Doom here, he has been trolling the blitz site. I know what you mean about those 2300+ players, Vortex is actually a USCF 2400+ player OTB! He played me on blitz, sac'd his queen on about move 3, and proceeded to mop me up like I was a 6 year old. Very humbling.
I'm at 1700 and have recently played my first 2300. I was shocked by the constant pressure I was under from his aggressive moves. I got whipped in 20 moves and never had a chance to catch my breath. It is a world of difference from my previous highest rated opponent (1800). There I was able to get my game going and even try some ideas of my own. I felt I ...[text shortened]... realized at move 10 I was a goner. 😳 :'( For me it is all about the aggression and pressure.
It was like when you consider the power of a knight for instance, it seemed like it was covering twice it's normal distance🙂
I think I just had an epiphany, where we lower ranks look at a knight and see its 8 moves, those dudes must see 64, eh.
monty described a 2300 player of having constant pressure while playing his opponent. A player of that rating doesn't necessarily play agressively, they consistantly play actively and know which moves are passive and which ones lead to better positions. Sure we can calculate as good as they can, but their experience will tell them what moves lead down a drawish game as opposed to a winning game. And if you deviate from book, they will crush you!
Originally posted by kmac27And the book ends around 20 moves max so after that you are in deep doo doo.
monty described a 2300 player of having constant pressure while playing his opponent. A player of that rating doesn't necessarily play agressively, they consistantly play actively and know which moves are passive and which ones lead to better positions. Sure we can calculate as good as they can, but their experience will tell them what moves lead down a drawish game as opposed to a winning game. And if you deviate from book, they will crush you!
Originally posted by sonhouseThey won't crush you because you played out of the "book." that's preposterous! They will crush you because they are better, 2300s can be beaten with less than perfect opening play and you may have a better chance by taking them out of book.
And the book ends around 20 moves max so after that you are in deep doo doo.
Originally posted by tomtom232They will crush you because they are better,
Correct
2300s can be beaten with less than perfect opening play and you may
have a better chance by taking them out of book.
I think this bit is dodgy Tom Tom:
If a move is not in the book then it's most likely bad and the
2300 will know it's bad and look for and find a cruncher.
Best to play the opening you know and and stick to it.
Let them prove they are the better player.
The Stronger player in these situations hates it when the weaker
player has reached an even middle game. It means they must put
some work in. A lot will faff about doing apparently nothing waiting
for the lemon. This is where you will lose it.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseI can tell you, as I'm currently getting my butt kicked by Skeeter in two games, she sees a heck of a lot more in the position than I do. In each game I've had a weakness I didn't even know existed, and she developed a way to pressure that weakness into a won position.
But you have players like Skeeter who is at the 2300 level but seems not to play any other 2300 players but keeps beating the 1800 crowd. I looked at this persons' games trying to suss out what it is that allows that kind of rating without playing others of the same strength so what is up with that?
The difference is exactly as greenpawn stated - knowing tactics (me) to deep positional understanding.
Edit: I plan on spending some time on these games after they are over. I feel I'm on the receiving end of a Nimzo lecture; the threat of taking a weak point opens up other possibilities in the position.
Originally posted by greenpawn34You are talking about the opening like its a forced variation. There are many improvements to be made on many openings and if you play the second best move instead of the best, or "book," move then your opponent will be looking for a crusher where there is none and this will also be to your advantage... Its far easier to best someone when they have over-extended and have to waste time retreating their pieces to defend their king.
They will crush you because they are better,
Correct
2300s can be beaten with less than perfect opening play and you may
have a better chance by taking them out of book.
I think this bit is dodgy Tom Tom:
If a move is not in the book then it's most likely bad and the
2300 will know it's bad and look for and find a cruncher.
Best to p ...[text shortened]... ll faff about doing apparently nothing waiting
for the lemon. This is where you will lose it.
Originally posted by tomtom232Additionally, a "less than optimum" move is only so if your opponent can come up with the refutation. Even if the book line is objectively best, it doesn't mean that your opponent will know how to respond to a legitimate sideline.
You are talking about the opening like its a forced variation. There are many improvements to be made on many openings and if you play the second best move instead of the best, or "book," move then your opponent will be looking for a crusher where there is none and this will also be to your advantage... Its far easier to best someone when they have over-extended and have to waste time retreating their pieces to defend their king.
I think beginners put way too much stalk in the objective relative strength of opening systems and moves, and not enough time developing skill at playing chess.
Originally posted by MindWarsThere are three types of 'less than optimum moves', the ??, ? and ?!.
Additionally, a "less than optimum" move is only so if your opponent can come up with the refutation. Even if the book line is objectively best, it doesn't mean that your opponent will know how to respond to a legitimate sideline.
I think beginners put way too much stalk in the objective relative strength of opening systems and moves, and not enough time developing skill at playing chess.
The first allows a crusher of a reply. The second may refute the line, but may not be an obvious loss immediately. The final, to paraphrase Ruben Fine, may only show its defects 20 moves later vs a master.
The point is every single move in a game is important. The best move won't be the same for every player in the opening. Some will want to send the game down sharper avenues, others more positional. There may be different key squares / diagonals / files that may be used - your choice of move depends on which is part of your plan. Bronstein said White's advantage isn't as much having the first move as it is having the choice of what direction the game goes, sharper or positional.
In the age of computer analysis, there is too much focus on the 'best' move, IMHO. But, with limited time to study, one can make use of opening study every game, while endgame practice pays off less frequently. Another reason for the focus on opening study may be the prevalence of internet blitz. Even 1200 rated players on some sites will bang out 10 moves of theory in their favorite opening. It lets people play 3 0 games without getting blown off the board in the first 8 moves.