16 Nov 06
Originally posted by Fat LadyI found that out in my first otb league game last season, I got to the endgame with an advantage, but was lost without the analye board facility, and didn't get my king active quickly enough. I found that otb I have a weakness in the endgame because I have learned on cc and relied on extensive study of that particular game position rather than a knowledge of tactics. I am getting better but it was hard, I also found it starnge using a clock and a terrible distraction having to write down the moves.
If you've never played much over-the-board chess then you're likely to be weak at tactics and thinking of a move quickly. I imagine that playing "live" games on the Yahoo games server or somewhere better (Yahoo is pretty dreadful) would improve both of these.
I'm surprised that you are struggling against players with an ECF grade that low. Have you tried ...[text shortened]... one with a grade less than 80 is very weak and will probably self-destruct if you let them.
16 Nov 06
Originally posted by Fat LadyAnother important factor to consider with OTB games is stamina.
If you've never played much over-the-board chess then you're likely to be weak at tactics and thinking of a move quickly. I imagine that playing "live" games on the Yahoo games server or somewhere better (Yahoo is pretty dreadful) would improve both of these.
Approx. 80% of players make an average of less than 10 moves per day on this site. Compare this to OTB where a single game can be an intense 3-4 hours and 40+ moves.
I played my first OTB tournament in about 10 years earlier this year. I played a good first game, beating the second seed in the section. However, I was stunned at how much it exhausted me. I crashed out on the rest of the tournament, managing only a 1400 tournament performance.
16 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by craigyThat's very true. I try to use this to my advantage when I'm playing either very young or very old opponents (or people who are drinking alcohol during the game!).
Another important factor to consider with OTB games is stamina.
Approx. 80% of players make an average of less than 10 moves per day on this site. Compare this to OTB where a single game can be an intense 3-4 hours and 40+ moves.
I played my first OTB tournament in about 10 years earlier this year. I played a good first game, beating the second seed in th ...[text shortened]... ed me. I crashed out on the rest of the tournament, managing only a 1400 tournament performance.
I deliberately make the game last as long as possible and try to ensure that they need to make difficult decisions late in the evening. I've found that young and old players are likely to get tired after two hours play so I try to keep the game complicated until then.
In my local league we do not have adjournments which means that players can't just hold on until the end of the session and come back refreshed at a later date - they have to sit at the board until the game is over.
Quick play finishes are very interesting. Our time control is 90 minutes each to play all the moves. I have found that at some stage when my opponent has less than thirty minutes left they will switch to "fast time control mode" and stop analysing so deeply. If you can detect when they start doing this, it is the perfect time to catch them out with a cheapo and I used this technique twice last year to snatch undeserved victories from equal positions which looked like they were heading for draws.
16 Nov 06
1 edit
I have almost the reverse of the problems of many people here.
People say that they struggle OTB because of being forced into time controls, which (to them) are a LOT faster than on RHP, where you can mull positions over for as long as you want, and also allows you to "visualize" it (ie. the Analysis board).
In the town I live in, there's no real chess club, so three of my friends would come to my house and play friendly games. One would play OTB, and the other game would be played on computer.
The time controls were used were blitz (5 min) and I developed a "feel" for playing fast.
Then, during the tournament that our school has annually, we had no time controls (this was back during primary school, so the longest anyone concentrated on a position was 1-2 minutes anyway).
And even playing games at THAT speed (about 1 minute a move) seemed so slow to me. I would play my move within seconds, and then my opponent would stare deeply at the board and think for abot 45 seconds, sometimes even longer in a complicated middlegame.
Since then I've been practicing playing longer time controls against really weak computers, but the slowest I can go is 10 mins/game.
RHP is by far the most time I've looked at a single position, but I haven't really played much OTB lately, so I'm not sure if it helped my patience, or my rating either (I'm not rated OTB)
17 Nov 06
Originally posted by power moverI use to play on RHP much more than I do now, and after studying the first two volumes of the Lev Alburt course, I was constantly wondering why my rating was not 1800 USCF. Come to find out Lev Alburt's course only brings you to around 1600+ which is what I hit on RHP when I was playing lots of games and moving without books, databases, etc... I was moving with no more than a 30 or 40 seconds of thought in about 90 percent of my games when I hit that 1600+ on RHP. Ironically, I believe Chessmaster 9000 ratings are inflated around 200/300 points, because I was constantly drawing 1800 personalities all the time, and my step father was awestruck. However, I kept telling him that I am not an 1800 player! I finally found out the course I took only takes you to 1600+, maybe 1700 if you truly study an hour every day and play on serious hour game against good competition like a computer. SO, I told him I was no 1800 player, but around 1600+ because I was moving so quickly on RHP and after 100 or so games, I had a 1600+ rating. Then, I was confused, because I was beating my e-chess Excalbur chess computer all the time and it was rating me at 1850!??? I said no way, so I wrote the company. I could go on, but with this all said, I would say that a lot of the confusion stems over ELO versus USCF here in the United States. USCF ratings are inflated by at least 100 points. If you look up most top professional player's USCF ratings and compare them to FIDE ratings, you'll find this to be true in most instances. ELO is stronger supposedly. So, when I was beating my e-chess 99% of the time at the 72nd level, I was really beating an estaimed 1600 ELO player, not a 1700 ELO player. 1700 USCF is around 1600 ELO. This sounds right, because my 1600 rating on RHP rating compared exactly to a 1600 ELO score against e-chess. So, those RADIOSHACK e-chess chess computers are really by USCF standards, because I wrote the company and they told me just that! Oddly enough, I score around 1800-1899 on Solitaire Chess by Bruce Pandolfini most of the time.... So, I was confused again. but, 1800-1899 is in USCF terms not FIDE. Anyway, subtract 100 points from 1800-1899 and you get around 1700s. That's about what I was playing at when I was studying an hour a day and playing serious games with top class playing competition. I have no doubt, I could have reached that 1700 level oN RHP if I hadn't had a lot of timeouts lately. Anyway, RHP ratings would seem rather accurate, but I was say give or take 100 points after 100 games, and you get around what your strength is without time pressure and plenty of time to think like against a computer. Your OTB may be lower, because time pressure adds more difficulties. So, I would say OTB might be 100 points more or less your RHP rating if you take this site seriously.
I've recently started playing OTB. I'm finding that my rating OTB is nowhere near as good as my RHP rating. I certainly expected a difference for obvious reasons but the gap seems to be vast. I'm really strugling against players of 60 and 70 BCF.
Whats your feelings on how OTB and RHP ratings compare?
17 Nov 06
Originally posted by powershakerWhat a stupid story.
I use to play on RHP much more than I do now, and after studying the first two volumes of the Lev Alburt course, I was constantly wondering why my rating was not 1800 USCF. Come to find out Lev Alburt's course only brings you to around 1600+ which is what I hit on RHP when I was playing lots of games and moving without books, databases, etc... I was mov ...[text shortened]... d say OTB might be 100 points more or less your RHP rating if you take this site seriously.
18 Nov 06
Originally posted by powershakerNope, your rating is what your rating is. Potential means jack. If you play quick, and make mistakes because of it, thats your problem. I usually would use 30 mins in OTB games where I had 2 hours, because I found it hard to sit and think for long periods of time without getting bored (thats why I like CC, as I can play different games at the same time, and come back to them after a couple of days break) but I didnt claim I was 250 points better than my rating (which is what I could play to when i actually played a full game without getting bored). I accepted that my rating doesnt lie, it takes into account everything, not just pure chess ability, as it is purely results based.
I use to play on RHP much more than I do now, and after studying the first two volumes of the Lev Alburt course, I was constantly wondering why my rating was not 1800 USCF. Come to find out Lev Alburt's course only brings you to around 1600+ which is what I hit on RHP when I was playing lots of games and moving without books, databases, etc... I was mov ...[text shortened]... d say OTB might be 100 points more or less your RHP rating if you take this site seriously.
As for quoting various other ratings, computer ones are useless. I can beat Fritz 6 on ~2000 rating about 60% of the time. Computers dont play properly to those levels, they just ape what they are told a 2000 rated player plays. Only grading that is true in my eyes is your national ELO or FIDE rating, once you have played enough games.
18 Nov 06
Originally posted by powershakercould you even possibly be more boring...
I use to play on RHP much more than I do now, and after studying the first two volumes of the Lev Alburt course, I was constantly wondering why my rating was not 1800 USCF. Come to find out Lev Alburt's course only brings you to around 1600+ which is what I hit on RHP when I was playing lots of games and moving without books, databases, etc... I was mov ...[text shortened]... d say OTB might be 100 points more or less your RHP rating if you take this site seriously.
- Joined
- 20 Oct 02
- Moves
- 595211
20 Nov 06
Originally posted by power moverI'm the opposite. I average 1550-1650 here, and OTB I'm just a couple points shy of 1800
I've recently started playing OTB. I'm finding that my rating OTB is nowhere near as good as my RHP rating. I certainly expected a difference for obvious reasons but the gap seems to be vast. I'm really strugling against players of 60 and 70 BCF.
Whats your feelings on how OTB and RHP ratings compare?