Honest Advice for a Change?

Umm isn't he only 1600 on here?

He started at p1200 and gained 400 points? There are so many 1400's on here that make elementary mistakes, so that isn't too hard..

Originally posted by Willzzz
Umm isn't he only 1600 on here?

He started at p1200 and gained 400 points? There are so many 1400's on here that make elementary mistakes, so that isn't too hard..

Its approximate but so what? 100 points here or there doesnt change anything.

There's plenty of 1400s that make elementary mistakes in regular OTB chess too. In fact, probably more often.

He won his first 29 games straight against 1400 level competition. Thats not luck.

You were claiming 900 points increase which is more than double 400.

There have been many threads about this and you simply can't compare CC chess to OTB chess. The rankings work differently, they aren't comparable. There is a completely different set of players and then there's the whole database debate that we have also had recently.

He is far from unique amongst the others on this site. I'm playing a guy atm who has a rating over 2000 and has been on the site for only a few days.

Originally posted by Willzzz
You were claiming 900 points increase which is more than double 400.

There have been many threads about this and you simply can't compare CC chess to OTB chess. The rankings work differently, they aren't comparable. There is a completely different set of players and then there's the whole database debate that we have also had recently.

He is far from u ...[text shortened]... m playing a guy atm who has a rating over 2000 and has been on the site for only a few days.

900 points in 6 months which is 1800 for a year. 1800 is more than 4x the absolute upper limit of anything I've ever heard of.

I dont believe correspondence chess is substantialy different for beginners than OTB. Beginners generally play correspndence the exact same way they play OTB. Its not until they learn to analyze that anything changes. Even so have you seen anyone make an 1800 point a year improvement in correspondence? I've seen people banned fom other sites for comparable rates of improvement and based solely on that.

First, they're called ratings not rankings. Rankings are something entirely different. Second, I dont know RHP's formula but I would imagine its not that much different. If you feel like you can show how they made an 1800 point difference by all means go ahead.

Pool of players-Sure the pool is different. But generally its a random sample so its not going to make that much difference. The ratings here are fairly comparable. But really we're talking about rates of improvement more than whether or not the ratings are comparable to OTB.

Database- doesnt matter at all in games between beginners.

I dont doubt that a very strong player could join the site and put up a big rating. What we're talking about is completely different. We're talking about a guy who in his own words "...just started playing like 6 months ago". A guy who was an absolute beginner 6 months ago joins this site, never loses a game, and whose games (by extrapolation) are at a quality that puts him roughly in the top 10% of all OTB tournament players if not higher. Even the greatest chess geniuses of all time took years to create games of that quality whether we're talking about correspondence or not. Even in correspondence you still have to have board vision and chess knowledge and that takes years to acquire. While its possible to brute force analyze things out 1) Beginners arent going to know how to do that 2) Who analyzes like that ? 3) Beginners are still going to make mistakes and lose occasionally. He hasnt.

Look if he does make 1800 points in a year then I'll agree with you, he won't. From his original post we can assume he has read chess books, regularly reads chess blogs, and has done some puzzles. He is not starting with the knowledge of a child.

If you assume he starts at 800 and the site assumes he starts at 1200 then until he has played a significant number of games that is going to affect your conclusions.

Your absolute best case upper limit is 225 points in 6 months right? so lets say his rating was 1425, would that make him a raving genius too?

I suspect the pool of players is very different. Anyway who has an OTB rating is clearly in to chess, while I suspect there are a large number of very casual players on here.

I just don't get why you are giving the guy such a hard time?

Originally posted by gorookyourself
You haven't lost yet so what's the problem?

When I started here, I went 36 games without a loss. Then I found some REAL players...

Also, what's the big deal about being 1600? A mere 841 points lower than the top.

Strewth.

You are like a pack of parrot rats.

"The grade, the grade, look at the grade...."

Look at the bloody GAMES

I just had to look at few games to see all this guy is really doing
is taking his time and not blundering away his pieces.

He is making legal moves, nothing more,
and winning against weaker players.

Chess wise he has a long way to go.

Look at this typical game. He's White.

He swaps his good Bishop leaving his other Bishop
looking like a big pawn on e3.



Him and his opponent then mess about not too sure what they are doing.

He pulls a one move trick that wins a pawn.

His opponent pulls a similiar trick but has missed an obvious flaw
in his calculations.

(I use the word calculations but that is obviously the wrong word for
playing a move without actually calculating anything).

Our man is now a clear exchange up but he screws it up by allowing a perpetual.

But he won. Yes. Black had the perpetual.



White had been going h1-h2-h1-h2. for the past few moves.
He had settled for the draw.

So it was a Draw?

No!

Suddenly Black decided to try and win it by getting the Queens off. 😲

Then came some terrible endgame play by Black (even worse than mine) 1-0.

Originally posted by savage4731
Actually I know quite a bit about starting out as an adult. Although I played chess when I was young, I wasnt very good and never put in any effort to learn as a child. When i decided to improve as an adult I gained about 1000 points in 2 1/2 years up to 1800. If you've done any research you know thats pretty much unheard of. Typical for adults is about 100 points a year.

It completely depends on at what point you play your first rated game. Like you, I played as a kid (meaning I knew how the pieces moved and could mate with king and rook). I was probably 1000 strength for lack of anyone better to make me stop playing for 4 move checkmate.

As an adult I played on icc for about 6 months or so and then joined a club and started playing otb. I came out of provisional at 1700. Does that mean in 9 months I gained 900 rating points? Not so sure of that.

I think it is difficult to generalize about ratings as the conditions they come from can be wildly different. The OP my mean that s/he has been playing serious chess for 6 months.. not they just learned how to move the pieces 6 months ago.

Originally posted by sonhouse
When I started here, I went 36 games without a loss. Then I found some REAL players...

Also, what's the big deal about being 1600? A mere 841 points lower than the top.

Statistically 36 games would be very unusual but consider this: Just glancing at your graph it looks like you were playing at about 1600 when joined. So winning 36 games against players who you are several hundred points better than is a lot less unusual than winning the same games as an absolute beginner.

In 5 years you've improved about 100 points.
In 6 months he's improved about 900 points.
See the difference?

1600 isnt really that important at all. Its the rate of improvement that's the big deal. He's also putting up performance ratings in the range of 1800-1900 and would have a rating in the range of 2100-2200 just continuing to do what's aleady done. All that from a guy who just started a few months ago.

Originally posted by savage4731
Statistically 36 games would be very unusual but consider this: Just glancing at your graph it looks like you were playing at about 1600 when joined. So winning 36 games against players who you are several hundred points better than is a lot less unusual than winning the same games as an absolute beginner.

In 5 years you've improved about 100 points. continuing to do what's aleady done. All that from a guy who just started a few months ago.

Quit throwing around accusations, look at the games, and use your head.

The number next to his username means nothing until he plays against some better oppostion, and even then CC ratings on an online site are meaningless when compared to OTB ratings. Your yourself say your rating was 1800 a long time ago, and on this site you sit at the dizzying heights of 1500.

Edit - Another point is that you say at this rate he'll be world champion in months. Any decent chess player will know that it takes ten times more effort to get from 2000 to 2400 than it does from 800 to 1200, although the point difference is the same.

Also there are plenty of records of chess players reaching expert level within two years, maybe less. Until on reaches higher levels, improvement comes in different speeds, depending on study habits, skill, age, etc.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
[b]Strewth.

You are like a pack of parrot rats.


I just had to look at few games to see all this guy is really doing
is taking his time and not blundering away his pieces.

Isnt taking your time and not blundering away pieces what everyone tries to do?

I intentionally didnt look at his games. Ratings are a reliable predictor of performance.

Originally posted by savage4731
I'm just curious how you got to 1600 in only 6 months ? That took Josh Waitzkin 3 years to do and they made a movie about him.

"Opponent Average Rating: 1394"

That might have something to do with it. 🙄

Another dumb question: How do you know it was only 6 months? This game IS played outside RHP, you know.

Originally posted by savage4731
Isnt taking your time and not blundering away pieces what everyone tries to do?

I intentionally didnt look at his games. Ratings are a reliable predictor of performance.

Are you kidding me, or are you drunk?

Originally posted by clandarkfire
Any decent chess player will know that it takes ten times more effort to get from 800 to 1200 than it does from 2000 to 2400, although the point difference is the same.

I think you mean that vice versa 🙂

toet.

thanks 😛