ECF Players

Originally posted by JonathanB of London
I think I would agree with this.

A while back I was asking about average strength opposition when I noticed for some of the top players the figures are very low.

I occurred to me that one way to get a very high rating here is to bash up 100s of players a long way below your strenght. the odd accident taken into consideration, the point or most simple explanation for examples of that phenomenon is very likely to be the corret one.

I think you're actually saying the direct opposite of what atticus said? according to your scenario, a 1900 OTB can reach 2200+ RHP by playing loads of low rated players, right? (edit: oh, I just noticed you later said you think fundamentally it shouldn't affect that much...)

it's hard for me to imagine how differently a 2200+ thinks chess, but if I transfer the example down to my own level, it seems to me a 1700 OTB can easily reach 2000 RHP. there seems to be loads of people with even greater difference between OTB & RHP, and I mean people who are very unlikely to cheat or lie about OTB rating.

then again, I don't play OTB myself, so it's all hypothesis & hearsay. but I'm quite sure I wouldn't be anywhere near 2000 OTB if I took it up, 1700-1800 seems much more realistic guesstimate to me.

one think though about CC which I've seen with many high rated people already, is that they can delay resignations for quite a long time, and then resign all lost ones at once. my hypothesis is that their real strength is their rating at the bottom of that pit. I'm not sure if that holds, but their pre-resignation rating sure isn't the right one. -but point was that in OTB you can't do that, you play one game at a time, and you can't delay the resignations. and maybe this multiple simultaneous games vs. singular games thing also has much more effect on the rating differences than we even realize? parallel vs. serial processing, you certainly couldn't mix those kind of scenarios in any mathematical context without getting crazy results?

Originally posted by wormwood
I think you're actually saying the direct opposite of what atticus said? according to your scenario, a 1900 OTB can reach 2200+ RHP by playing loads of low rated players, right? (edit: oh, I just noticed you later said you think fundamentally it shouldn't affect that much...)

it's hard for me to imagine how differently a 2200+ thinks chess, but if ...[text shortened]... those kind of scenarios in any mathematical context without getting crazy results?

I think its much simpler than that, just like you I don't play OTB or at least I don't have any rating, my only rating is RHP rating and am currently 1590s. I know for a fact, that if I were to play in a OTB banded 1500-1600 tourney I would end up last. why? because I can't calculate without moving the pieces, maybe I'm not good at it, or maybe I never tried. The thing is in CC everyone can move the pieces about and play much better than one would OTB. now not everyone does that, some people play blitz here in CCRHP, and you get 1500 pools with all kind of player strenghts, some with their ratings higher than they should be, and some lower.

If I were to guess my OTB rating id say between 1300-1400 maybe a little better, and here on RHP I can win from those players easily. I'll give you an example, my grandfather is graded 1900, he slashes me up everytime OTB but now I'm playing him via e-mail and I'm actually winning, maybe I am having a lucky day, but still, I don't feel like I am playing better than I usually do here. OK, maybe I'm not a perfect example, but I feel there are many more like me around here, people who aren't that good OTB but can compensate that in CC by playing out moves and treating chess like a Cience, by experimentation that is.

you tell me, is that possible?

What would you guys say about Weyestrass? He's an IM I think and he couldn't cross the 2500 barrier. I think the RHP ratings are pretty much equivalent to an ELO rating.

Yeah and Greenpawn too. I beleive he's rated 2001 and on here he was rated about that too.

Infact I think CC chess is much tougher especially if you're playing more than one game bcos of the fragmentation.

Another example, Chesskid also on RHP says he has a USCF rating of 1800+ or so. and on here he's lower. There are countless others.

Originally posted by orion25
I think its much simpler than that, just like you I don't play OTB or at least I don't have any rating, my only rating is RHP rating and am currently 1590s. I know for a fact, that if I were to play in a OTB banded 1500-1600 tourney I would end up last. why? because I can't calculate without moving the pieces, maybe I'm not good at it, or maybe I never tried ...[text shortened]... ing chess like a Cience, by experimentation that is.

you tell me, is that possible?

I have similar problems. in a 2d classical controls setting the calculation problem already hinders me severely, but on a 3d board I'm practically playing blindfolded. I would guess seasoned OTB veterans might suffer from an opposite type of board vision problem. and in fact I remember greenpawn complaining about not seeing 2d board properly many times.

different kinds of chess are different, and you do best at what you train most. not that surprising really.

Originally posted by Goshen
What would you guys say about Weyestrass? He's an IM I think and he couldn't cross the 2500 barrier. I think the RHP ratings are pretty much equivalent to an ELO rating.

Yeah and Greenpawn too. I beleive he's rated 2001 and on here he was rated about that too.

Infact I think CC chess is much tougher especially if you're playing more than one game bcos o ...[text shortened]... ys he has a USCF rating of 1800+ or so. and on here he's lower. There are countless others.

I think it comes down to what sort of a player you are. Solid positional players who crack under time pressure tend to find their ratings go right up when playing correspondance whereas a player who gets alot of swindles and cheap shot tactics over the board may find the doors slammed in his face far more frequently when their opponent does not have the time pressure to suffer from.

On the subject of these new grades, I hear some people say it is bad for juniors to be boosted up so highly but I say that is nonsense. I have lost count of the number of times I sat down to play a kid rated 30 or 40 points lower then me but knowing I am going to be up against a player whose standard is at least as strong, if not better then me - I have to win just to do what was 'expected' of me, and gain next to nothing for beating a good opponent, wheras he has got absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain, but with a decent chance of doing that.
So I say it is great that the juniors are suddenly the ones who will have to defend their high ratings - it gives them a bit of a taste of what it has been like for all the rest of us experienced players for all these years.

whereas a player who gets alot of swindles and cheap shot tactics over the board may find the doors slammed in his face far more frequently when their opponent does not have the time pressure to suffer from.

Cheap shot tactics. LOL!!! I'm guilty of trying to pull those off.
😛😛

Originally posted by Goshen
Cheap shot tactics. LOL!!! I'm guilty of trying to pull those off.
😛😛

yes aren't we all, the real thrill comes in looking at all ones opponents avenues of escape and making sure there are none, and then, he plays the move and, gulp our chin hits the floor......

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes aren't we all, the real thrill comes in looking at all ones opponents avenues of escape and making sure there are none, and then, he plays the move and, gulp our chin hits the floor......

hell: today I played a move wich I thought was checkmate, well, gess what! it wasn't...

I lost my queen.

Originally posted by orion25
hell: today I played a move wich I thought was checkmate, well, gess what! it wasn't...

I lost my queen.

Ah the travails of we woodpushers 😏