Originally posted by greenpawn34I’m glad you think that GP. I was leaning towards the lower tourn. I know what you mean about the low graded player entering the higher tourns. You see it a lot with juniors. I always thought these guys would be better off winning the lower tourns for a year or two before moving up when their grade justifies it. I’m sure the development of some good players has been stifled because they moved up to fast and never learned to win games. Thrown to quickly in with the lions and only learning to survive, not to thrive.
Hi Heddy,
I thought that is what you were trying to say.
I always advise play in the lowest one your grade allows you to play in.
(though I will defend anyone's right to play where they want.)
Let's say you are 1600, play in a 2000 tourney and get hammered a few times.
You stay at 1600 and there is a good chance you won't learn anything.
So ...[text shortened]... w haircut and some cool dude clothes.
That 1940's look went out in the.....1940's.
Only problem for me is that if I get less than say 4/5 I’ll be gutted. Nothing for it then. Time to dust down the old chessboard and put the Rocky 4 LP on.
1940’s? My demob suit still has a few years wear left in it and my hair is self pruning these days.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Perfect reply. I always play wherever my rating places me, with the idea that if I want to play up, I need to earn my seat at the table.
Hi Heddy,
I thought that is what you were trying to say.
I always advise play in the lowest one your grade allows you to play in.
(though I will defend anyone's right to play where they want.)
Let's say you are 1600, play in a 2000 tourney and get hammered a few times.
You stay at 1600 and there is a good chance you won't learn anything.
So ...[text shortened]... w haircut and some cool dude clothes.
That 1940's look went out in the.....1940's.
I don't want to play down, so I should not expect others to be any different.
