I think my best fics rating was about 1980 - I came close to 2000 but it is quite hard to get over that mark, I find the only real difference between a 1400 and a 1900 on there is that the 1900s will play real openings and the lower graded players just play their own systems but are often quite good with them still.
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexMy standard rating is just over 1900 and I really don't understand how decent blitzers fall to bits in the longer games.
I think my best fics rating was about 1980 - I came close to 2000 but it is quite hard to get over that mark, I find the only real difference between a 1400 and a 1900 on there is that the 1900s will play real openings and the lower graded players just play their own systems but are often quite good with them still.
My FICS blitz varies nowadays around 1590-1690 (1400-1599 drunk).
I haven't played standard games for some time but I quess that the standard rating reflects quite well the RHP rating (of course some people perform better in CC i.e. take more time to analyse moves). At least my own FICS standard has been in the region of my RHP rating.
- b
Originally posted by diskamylI can understand that. Some people have their "mother sites" where they feel well, comfortable and play better then on other sites.
yeah that's clever of you but what I meant was how can a 1500~ player in RHP get to 1900 in FICS?
Personally, altough I like the RHP site far the most after 3 years of intense chess study I would be very disapointed if 1650 is my real rating.
I just love the tension of the OTB games and there I can give far more, especially if I play against someone who I desperatly want to win against (I beat my 1800 rated cousin more than he beats me, but on internet site I lose against him because I do not have proper motivation).
Highly individual issue, I think.