How good is "good"?

Originally posted by amolv06
You don't have to be good to know what's good and what's not. For instance, Michael Jordan was good. He was 3063 ELO. Karl Malone, not so much. He was merely 2642.

If that explanation doesn't suffice, how about "a certain gambit told me so"?

You don't have to be good to know what's good and what's not.

Typical dilettante`s illusions (not only in chess).


If you are not good player yourself you are unable to understand real difference between good and bad player.
1500 rated definitely is not good enough to understand it.

Good can be very subjective depending on how you want to evaluate things.

For example If you have only 3 categories of player, good, average and poor then good might be above 2000 and poor below 1200. That would make average anyone between 1200 and 2000 which is clearly nonsense as any 2000 will destroy any 1200 player.

So if we lower good to 1700 and raise poor to 1500 does it make more sense. Clearly not for even though 1500 - 1700 might very well be average you cannot group a 1700 in the same category as a 2300 and even the latter pales into insignificance against a 2700 player.

So we need more categories and I would start by leaving out of this classification everyone above 2300 for they are "masters" irrespective of whether they have the title yet or now. So is this elevated stratosphere we have our superlative players 2300-2400 being a FM, 2400-2500 an IM and 2500 above a GM. GMs above 2800 are in a special elevated category these are your potential World Champions and are in a class of their own.

At the opposite end and the scale we have a class of beginners and casual players. Many of these can play chess and play it socially only but don't go to a club and have never played a serious game OTB with a clock and would get a rude shock coming up against any club player. I will put these people at 1250 and below. I have chosen this arbitary level as below that you would have a negative ECF rating.

We therefore have a group of players graded 1250 to 2300 to decide whether they are good, average or poor and dividing this group up equally would make 1250-1600 poor, 1600-1950 average and 1950-2300 good. That is far more sensible although I wouldn't class a 1950 as average nor a 1600 as poor.

So what about poor, below average, average, above average, good and very good.

The groups now become 1250-1425 poor, 1425-1600 below average, 1600-1775 average, 1775-1950 above average, 1950-2125 good, 2125-2300 very good. This is much more sensible but 1600 is not below average. Lets get rid of the poor category then as no one like to be poor (especially when they can destroy all those below 1250 playesr) and add an excellant category so we drop everything down 1 category.

So we get 1250-1425 below average, 1425-1600 average, 1600-1775 above average, 1775-1950 good, 1950-2125 very good, 2125-2300 excellant.

To me this seems much more sensible and about right. As no one likes to be called below average why not call them class A, B, C, D, E and F. Why not call our very good and excellent players strong club players and county players. Good players then can be Club Players and grades A B and C remain to replace D E and F. Sounds good to me as no one fails and thats how it works now when ever anyone takes an exam so why not in chess also.

Originally posted by Korch
[b]You don't have to be good to know what's good and what's not.

Typical dilettante`s illusions (not only in chess).


If you are not good player yourself you are unable to understand real difference between good and bad player.
1500 rated definitely is not good enough to understand it.[/b]

With respect, Korch, but that's not only bollocks, it's condescending bollocks.

I'm a rather poor trumpet player (to be honest, after years of inactivity, probably a very poor one), but I can tell that Wynton Marsalis is bloody damn good. I can't even play the violin at all, but I have no problems discerning that Yehudi Menuhin could play the pants off just about anyone else; and also that people like Vanessa Mae and Andre Rieu are good, but not as good as they would like people to think they are. I can't draw very well and haven't held a paintbrush for years, but I can tell the difference between Frans Hals and Bob Ross, thank you very much.

As for chess, I'm a patzer at best, and don't think I don't know it. But I do know enough of the game to know that you yourself are a pretty decent player - probably not GM level, probably at least FM level - and I think even us poor, deluded, non-genius amateurs should be allowed to recognise the difference in quality between, say, Veselin Topalov and even the best players on this site. It's not that hard to recognise, I assure you.

Richard

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
With respect, Korch, but that's not only bollocks, it's condescending bollocks.

I'm a rather poor trumpet player (to be honest, after years of inactivity, probably a very poor one), but I can tell that Wynton Marsalis is bloody damn good. I can't even play the violin at all, but I have no problems discerning that Yehudi Menuhin could play the ...[text shortened]... players on this site. It's not that hard to recognise, I assure you.

Richard

Hi SB dude!

A 1500-1800 player cannot even play decently an endgame because his holistic evaluation is just poor. If and when that player boosts hiself up around 2100, only then he would be able to become a 2300 after at least three years of hard endgame training (and thanks to his endgame skills alone), and we are still talking solely about that exact phase of the game!

We may agree that the strategy/ tactics of the openings and of the middlegame as a whole is a means we use to enter an endgame that favors us more than our opponent.
So how can we expect from a weak player to be able to evaluate a complicated position in the opening/ middlegame when we know that he is unable to grasp the essentials of a much simpler position (endgame), not to mention his lack of tactical ability? A weak player can see a brilliance, as you said, but he cannot understand the difference between a "good" and a "relatively weaker" move. Definately he cannot understand the dynamics of a position, therefore he cannot apply a plan in order to gain a "good" endgame position. Well, this player cannot really grasp the difference between a good and a bad player, says Korch, and I agree. Afterall that's the reason why we need good annotators in order to understand in depth a brilliant game;

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
With respect, Korch, but that's not only bollocks, it's condescending bollocks.

I'm a rather poor trumpet player (to be honest, after years of inactivity, probably a very poor one), but I can tell that Wynton Marsalis is bloody damn good. I can't even play the violin at all, but I have no problems discerning that Yehudi Menuhin could play the ...[text shortened]... players on this site. It's not that hard to recognise, I assure you.

Richard

I think it was some pianist who said: "if I skip practice for a day, I hear it. if I skip two days, the critics hear it. if I skip three days the audience hears it."

a 1500 is definitely in the third group. probably most 2000s as well.

there are levels of understanding, and you usually can't see the next one until you're there. you can see the big errors, the ones familiar to your level. but not the ones specific to that upper level. if you could, you'd already be there.

Originally posted by Korch
[b]You don't have to be good to know what's good and what's not.

Typical dilettante`s illusions (not only in chess).


If you are not good player yourself you are unable to understand real difference between good and bad player.
1500 rated definitely is not good enough to understand it.[/b]

I would have to respectfully disagree.

I'm sure most picked up on it, but just to clarify I don't actually think you need to be above 2650 to be good. I was just alluding to what gambit said in the David Tebb thread.

That said, it's not at all difficult to pick on on good and bad for an amateur in many different scenarios. I'm certainly not good enough to play basketball for any major university. But by watching the games I could tell you which teams have higher caliber players, and therefore would be more likely to win. It's not hard to spot and say the 98 bulls were better than any college team. Or any NBA team for that matter. Many sports analysts have never played the game at the level which they analyze, yet they are excellent analysts.

Now I can't pretend to understand some of the moves Grandmasters make without having someone explain it to me, or running the moves through the computer. I can't analyze their play the same way you can, probably. You may be able to pick up on differences between the masters that are more subtle than what I can pick up. But it's certainly not hard to tell when a player has real talent.

Originally posted by amolv06
I would have to respectfully disagree.

I'm sure most picked up on it, but just to clarify I don't actually think you need to be above 2650 to be good. I was just alluding to what gambit said in the David Tebb thread.

That said, it's not at all difficult to pick on on good and bad for an amateur in many different scenarios. I'm certainly not good enough ...[text shortened]... n what I can pick up. But it's certainly not hard to tell when a player has real talent.

An amateur just sees the pieces on the chesboard and a move-by-move string; a M sees the whole chesboard with lines and holes and spheres of influence of each chesman; a GM sees a unified field in which the space and the force have a dynamic multi-leveled interaction. Definately a weak player cannot grasp the difference between a M and a GM, or the difference between an even strong player and a M.

Originally posted by wormwood
I think it was some pianist who said: "if I skip practice for a day, I hear it. if I skip two days, the critics hear it. if I skip three days the audience hears it."

a 1500 is definitely in the third group. probably most 2000s as well.

there are levels of understanding, and you usually can't see the next one until you're there. you can see the big err ...[text shortened]... level. but not the ones specific to that upper level. if you could, you'd already be there.

I couldn't agree more. I look at games of players graded up to about 2200 and think, "of course that is good, why didn't I see that?". I make a mental note to do better next time but of course I don't.

But when I look at a game from a GM and marvel at its beauty I cannot understand why so many of his moves are better than the ones I would choose.

You see I can understand the reason why those short term tactical moves are better than mine but I cannot visualise the reason for his early moves which are designed to give him a winning end game some 20 moves latter.

Does that mean I cannot tell that the GM is good and his moves are better than mine, it certainly does not! I can tell his moves are better but just cannot see why, whereas with the 2200 player I can not only see his moves are better but with a little effort I understand why. The 2200 player is good! I'd like to think I am quite good but compared to that GM I am a patzer.

Originally posted by amolv06
You have to be at least 2650 OTB to be good. Everything else is pathetically weak.

I take it this is a joke/sarcasm. This is extremely rare even for GMs. Moreover, any title with the word master obviously implies a high degree of skill by definition. Thus, good is definitely below master level while master level is more like great.

Moreover, I agree with Korch that to fully understand what good means or what kind of skill a certain rating implies, you must have experienced it. I certainly had a different impression of what 1600 took OTB before I got there. To highlight the difficulty, I met a FICS players who thought GMs were good because of openings and that was the difference. In fact, a GM would beat him even starting with a pawn down. Part of the reason GMs play better in openings is because they are stronger and understand what's going on. It's hard to remember 15 moves when you don't understand their purpose but it's effortless if the logic is clear. A weak player could even memorize all openings but would still get creamed by a GM because of lack of understanding and weaker play in the other phases. Such misconceptions about differences in skill are common because a player is trying to understand something greater than himself. Chess isn't like basketball where you just see a player making more shots or moving more effectively etc., light must be shined to make sense of it and when faced with someone much better, the room is dark. You know he's better but you can't see him so you're left to speculate on the reasons.

Originally posted by tomtom232
That's not true. There are probably people out there who love the game of chess and are strong enough to have a 2650 fide rating but quit playing before they got there for some odd reason... The point is that a bunch of numbers don't necessarily determine a players strength.

It is completely unknown and I highly doubt that is the case for even the promising juniors. You either get it or you don't - there are no potentials, ifs or maybes because that's just arbitrary speculation. Moreover, ratings are the only objective measure of a player's strength because if one claims to be stronger but performs at a low level, that extra knowledge or skill he thinks he has is not affecting his performance and might as well not exist (if it ever did).

Originally posted by exigentsky
... Such misconceptions are common because a player is trying to understand something greater than himself.

I think you mean that they're NOT trying to understand but memorize instead. 🙂

I wasn't talking about the opening but rather a much weaker player, like me, trying to understand why a GM is so much better (the precise differences in play) and what kind of skill it takes. I edited it to clarify.

Originally posted by wormwood
I think it was some pianist who said: "if I skip practice for a day, I hear it. if I skip two days, the critics hear it. if I skip three days the audience hears it."

a 1500 is definitely in the third group. probably most 2000s as well.

Sure, but that wasn't the point. The question was whether the audience can distinguish between the pianist playing and one of the critics playing, and I assure you that even an only moderately informed audience can, and equally, I assure you that the majority of dilettante but enthusiastic chessplayers can tell that Topalov is better than Korch is much better than I am.

Richard