Originally posted by RJHinds I see from your profile that you have only been on this site since January, so why would you doubt my reply is not being honest. Are you one to believe in rumors and prejudge others on hearsay?
No, I base your dishonesty on your OTB rating vs correspondence rating and your ridiculous posts, which can no way be from a 'master'.
Originally posted by RJHinds Well, according to your profile, you have been on this site since November 2008 and so it seems that you should have read my reply to such questions before. I have detailed the fact that once I learned of the RHP analyze board and decided to get serious about increasing my rating that I stopped playing my games as if they were OTB games and began using ever ...[text shortened]... t it. Let's hope your FIDE rating was never too high or it may be much more difficult for you.
thank you for your explanation I dont understand how what you are suggesting could result in a 700 point difference but maybe thats my problem but thank you anyway. PS dont assume what i have or have not read before or what my FIDE rating may be or may have been in tha past
Originally posted by st40 thank you for your explanation I dont understand how what you are suggesting could result in a 700 point difference but maybe thats my problem but thank you anyway. PS dont assume what i have or have not read before or what my FIDE rating may be or may have been in tha past
END OF COVERSATION
That is why I asked for your FIDE rating, so I would not have to assume. But since you would not tell me and still wanted advice, I did the best I could.
Originally posted by woodypusher No, I base your dishonesty on your OTB rating vs correspondence rating and your ridiculous posts, which can no way be from a 'master'.
I have never claimed to be a master. What makes you think I did?
Originally posted by RJHinds That is why I asked for your FIDE rating, so I would not have to assume. But since you would not tell me and still wanted advice, I did the best I could.
no i never asked for advice. i asked how some one could possibly have shown the "improvement" you have and for the record Ive not had a FIDE rating for many many years but given the few OTB rated games I have played over the last 6 or 7 years I'd estimate my rating at 1800 which is probably a bit higher than my last recorded rating
Originally posted by st40 no i never asked for advice. i asked how some one could possibly have shown the "improvement" on how i might replicate that but i didnt ask for advice for the record Ive not had a FIDE rating for many many years but given the few OTB rated games I have played over the last 6 or 7 years I'd estimate my rating at 1800 which is probably a bit higher than my last recorded rating.
My RHP rating is much higher 200-300 points then my uchess / chess.com blitz rating, I'm only 1200-1300, but players on RHP at that level I can beat, on chess.com its quite common to have a higher correspondance grade, not sure why that is but blitz seems tougher.
Originally posted by e4chris My RHP rating is much higher 200-300 points then my uchess / chess.com blitz rating, I'm only 1200-1300, but players on RHP at that level I can beat, on chess.com its quite common to have a higher correspondance grade, not sure why that is but blitz seems tougher.
I think more time and the ability to check opening books during the game is probably the reason. In blitz games, time is too valuable to be bothered with looking up an opening variation. You are forced to play like an OTB game and deal with how fast you can think and move and remember any openings or chess knowledge that can help you at the time. Also, practice playing blitz can give you a big advantage over someone that rarely plays quick games.
I once discussed this very point with IM Malcolm Pein and he said, quite correctly in my opinion, that CC ratings should be self-levelling since everyone has access to books and databases. Therefore, CC and OTB ratings should be similar.
Similarly, having extra time in CC chess can also not be a factor since this is the same for both players, as are time controls in OTB chess.
Aside from collecting points in CC chess from timeouts in games that otherwise would not have been won, there is only really one explanation for higher CC ratings.
I don't agree that having equal access to books means that OTB and correspondence ratings should be similar. Some people have much better memories and so are more likely to remember the critical moves in the opening when playing over-the-board games. In correspondence chess everyone can become an opening expert! So if two players have similar OTB ratings, but one has better opening knowledge and the other has more natural ability, I would expect the second to have a higher correspondence rating.
ratings ... chess players are generally self centred and egotistical - no wonder this obsession with rating points. i do agree with rjhinds on one point - psycholog is important in chess, there are many mind games to be had playing against your opponents ego. anyway , sorry .. im off the subject ... 25000 and not banned? couldn't care less .. sorry 🙂
Originally posted by simonwells999 ratings ... chess players are generally self centred and egotistical - no wonder this obsession with rating points. i do agree with rjhinds on one point - psycholog is important in chess, there are many mind games to be had playing against your opponents ego. anyway , sorry .. im off the subject ... 25000 and not banned? couldn't care less .. sorry 🙂
Originally posted by grandmasteryoda I once discussed this very point with IM Malcolm Pein and he said, quite correctly in my opinion, that CC ratings should be self-levelling since everyone has access to books and databases. Therefore, CC and OTB ratings should be similar.
Similarly, having extra time in CC chess can also not be a factor since this is the same for both players, as a ...[text shortened]... t otherwise would not have been won, there is only really one explanation for higher CC ratings.
That would be true if ratings were an absolute measure of anything. They are not. Ratings are nothing more than a measure of the likelihood of beating someone in the same rating pool.
Suppose two players with a FIDE rating of 2500 were to join this site. They only ever play each other and only ever draw. What would their ratings on RHP be after 12 months?
Originally posted by Kepler That would be true if ratings were an absolute measure of anything. They are not. Ratings are nothing more than a measure of the likelihood of beating someone in the same rating pool.
Suppose two players with a FIDE rating of 2500 were to join this site. They only ever play each other and only ever draw. What would their ratings on RHP be after 12 months?
23 Feb '13 03:421 edit
Has anyone not banned reached 2500 here?
Back to Top