Go back
for all the 1300's out there.....

for all the 1300's out there.....

Only Chess

Vote Up
Vote Down

this thread was originaly posted to inspire "us" weaker players to keep trying....

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by wormwood
could be the 1700's you've beaten were 1100 blitzers. there's no way to know until a blitz rating system is implemented. it's a totally different game. blitz is about not dropping material, and CC is about how to win when your opponent doesn't drop material.
Indeed....


At FICS my Blitz is generally falls 1400/1500 -- here, if you consider corr ratings, I am easily on par with fellow 1700/1800's....


but yes -- 1300's are suppringly strong when compared to the average population -- compared to the chess playing population however, well, sorry but, well your the small fish.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by chessisvanity
this thread was originaly posted to inspire "us" weaker players to keep trying....
I finally got to 1400s, but I don't think I'll stay there for long. I've playing and trying to improve for about 1,5 year, but don't see much of improvement... So, thanks for the inspiration chessisvanity.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Shinidoki
Indeed....


At FICS my Blitz is generally falls 1400/1500 -- here, if you consider corr ratings, I am easily on par with fellow 1700/1800's....


but yes -- 1300's are suppringly strong when compared to the average population -- compared to the chess playing population however, well, sorry but, well your the small fish.
I think that the average USCF rating is around 1350. So, you're almost an average tournament player at 1300, which is nothing to sneeze at (unless you have a cold).

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by gaychessplayer
I think that the average USCF rating is around 1350. So, you're almost an average tournament player at 1300, which is nothing to sneeze at (unless you have a cold).
RHP 1300 =/= UCF 1300

Vote Up
Vote Down

As far as im concerned..any player here that can sustain a rating of 1250 and above has to be a decent player..in fact a good player. The standard of RHP Chess is 'really rather good'. I thought i was a decent player until i tried this. Like many i had a long long gap after leaving school (about 30 years)and was still convinced i would do well. I did not....

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by carjam
Like many i had a long long gap after leaving school (about 30 years)and was still convinced i would do well. I did not....
same here...although my gap was around 15 years

go 1300's 😀

Vote Up
Vote Down

Vote Up
Vote Down

The post that was quoted here has been removed
if i did the same, i'd be 2000.

my poor fellow, didn't you know? everyone is just like you we all blitz drunken moves....constantly.

Vote Up
Vote Down

The post that was quoted here has been removed
I am at 1570 something player and currently drunk. . . If I play a 1200 player right now I will loose badly.

I believe a drunk, blitz factor needs to be calculated to adjust your rating accordingly, so as to give you an equivalent thoughtful, sober, analytical rating.

Take your current rating and use the following equation to calculate your true rating.

TR=R x N1/N2 x 1.33

Where

TR = true rating if you are sober and analytical
R= Current rating
N1= Number of games played when non compus mentus (in one week)
N2= Number of games played when sober (in one week )

1.33 represents the irrational move factor or "Dohh factor"

This should give your true rating with a +- of 50 points as the level of drunkenness when moving will very.

I hope this is useful.

Vote Up
Vote Down

The post that was quoted here has been removed
maybe i should start playing drunk

i might be a drunken master...my ratings could go up
😀

Vote Up
Vote Down

I have to agree with chessisvanity. After all, all the best players have been at a mediocre level at one point in their lives, so it's nothing to be ashamed of.

A good chess player should never be contempt with his/her level. They must always strive for higher. If someone is happy with how "good" they are at chess, they'll never get better. Self-critism is a good thing, too much of it is bad.

There will always be someone better than you, so you should never feel you're to good. More importantly, however, there will always be people much worse than you, so there's no need to feel down.

At a 1300 rating you're probably better than 99% of people in the world.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by MoneyMaker7
I have to agree with chessisvanity. After all, all the best players have been at a mediocre level at one point in their lives, so it's nothing to be ashamed of.

A good chess player should never be contempt with his/her level. They must always strive for higher. If someone is happy with how "good" they are at chess, they'll never get better. Self-criti ...[text shortened]... to feel down.

At a 1300 rating you're probably better than 99% of people in the world.
Is that 99% of people who know how the chess pieces move or 99 % of people who don't know how to play chess?

Vote Up
Vote Down

it meant 99 percent of people in the world....read it again fool!

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by chessisvanity
it meant 99 percent of people in the world....read it again fool!
You miss the point Bishop God. . . .🙄🙄🙄