Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 29 Mar '12 22:57
    Hi everyone, this is my first post in the forums! I only joined this site recently finding it great fun at the moment, was just wondering what kind of rating i should be aiming to hit.
    I generally play at about 150Ecf strength OTB, yet I am finding it hard to work out just where I should be on here! I am beating a 1780 atm yet maybe shouldnt be, and have comfortably beaten players below 1500. Any ideas would be appreciated, I am merely curious
  2. 29 Mar '12 23:13
    Originally posted by wittgensteinian
    Hi everyone, this is my first post in the forums! I only joined this site recently finding it great fun at the moment, was just wondering what kind of rating i should be aiming to hit.
    I generally play at about 150Ecf strength OTB, yet I am finding it hard to work out just where I should be on here! I am beating a 1780 atm yet maybe shouldnt be, and ...[text shortened]... ve comfortably beaten players below 1500. Any ideas would be appreciated, I am merely curious
    RHP ratings don't necessarily correlate with OTB ratings.
    You say that you play at about 150 ECF. For whatever it's worth, I looked up
    two inactive players at RHP: one's rated about 200 ECF and 2150 RHP and the
    other's rated about 170 ECF and 2000 RHP (with a peak rating of 2100+ RHP).

    My guess (which should not be taken too seriously) is that a 150 ECF player
    should strive to be 1800+ RHP and perhaps make a run at 2000 RHP.
  3. 30 Mar '12 00:06
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    RHP ratings don't necessarily correlate with OTB ratings.
    You say that you play at about 150 ECF. For whatever it's worth, I looked up
    two inactive players at RHP: one's rated about 200 ECF and 2150 RHP and the
    other's rated about 170 ECF and 2000 RHP (with a peak rating of 2100+ RHP).

    My guess (which should not be taken too seriously) is that a 150 ECF player
    should strive to be 1800+ RHP and perhaps make a run at 2000 RHP.
    hey duchess thanks for replying, I had guessed the correlations would be sporadic in places but the general ball park figure your talking about sounds good! looking at who Ive played so far I reckon id score around 50% against those at 1800 so maybe thats where i should be but I will be aiming higher!
  4. 30 Mar '12 08:06
    Originally posted by wittgensteinian
    Hi everyone, this is my first post in the forums! I only joined this site recently finding it great fun at the moment, was just wondering what kind of rating i should be aiming to hit.
    I generally play at about 150Ecf strength OTB, yet I am finding it hard to work out just where I should be on here! I am beating a 1780 atm yet maybe shouldnt be, and ...[text shortened]... ve comfortably beaten players below 1500. Any ideas would be appreciated, I am merely curious
    Strange that you are surprised at currently besting a 1780 player yet no mention of your performance against Kingshill. You state in your profile that you are not interested in ratings, so why this post?

    Mike
  5. 30 Mar '12 08:54
    I shouldnt really discuss the game but I think im certainly worse against kingshill. I am here primarily to improve my game rather than create a rating, I was just interested to see where I should be on the scale of things
  6. 30 Mar '12 20:21
    Originally posted by michael liddle to wittgensteinian
    Strange that you are surprised at currently besting a 1780 player yet no mention of your performance against Kingshill. ...
    To what extent does (or should) RHP permit public discussion of an ongoing game?
    Could making a comment about the position be construed as giving advice?
  7. 30 Mar '12 21:13
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    To what extent does (or should) RHP permit public discussion of an ongoing game?
    Could making a comment about the position be construed as giving advice?
    The mods are the ones to answer this. In general terms, stating the obvious like;'' your opponent has a better pawn structure'' or....''his/her connected rooks look strong'', doesn't constitute advice, surely?
  8. 30 Mar '12 22:09
    Originally posted by michael liddle
    The mods are the ones to answer this. In general terms, stating the obvious like;'' your opponent has a better pawn structure'' or....''his/her connected rooks look strong'', doesn't constitute advice, surely?
    I was not accusing you of giving advice.

    Should 'stating the obvious' not 'constitute advice'? The problem is that what's
    obvious to one player often is not obvious to another player in a given position,
    and so we might start down the 'slippery slope' of arguing about what *should be*
    'obvious' to both players (to all players?) in that position. Where would it stop?

    On many occasions, my opponents have not noticed what I thought was 'obvious',
    such as an opponent's king being in check, or one or more pieces being en prise,
    or the endgame having an 'obvious' (how can I avoid reiterating it?) conclusion.
    Hardly anything seems to be 'obvious' in chess for many novice players.
  9. 30 Mar '12 23:55
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    I was not accusing you of giving advice.

    Should 'stating the obvious' not 'constitute advice'? The problem is that what's
    obvious to one player often is not obvious to another player in a given position,
    and so we might start down the 'slippery slope' of arguing about what *should be*
    'obvious' to both players (to all players?) in that position. W ...[text shortened]... lusion.
    Hardly anything seems to be 'obvious' in chess for many novice players.
    Sometimes I think that the essential moment in chess is when something about the position that is not obvious to one player, becomes obvious to the other. Without this, the game ends in a draw.
  10. Subscriber Paul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    31 Mar '12 01:00
    I have seen very strong players playing blitz and beginning the game with the king and queen on the opposite squares, and neither player notices until castling is attempted, which usually is good for a laugh all around.

    I'd say that even the initial starting position isn't obvious all the time!
  11. 31 Mar '12 09:48
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    I was not accusing you of giving advice.

    Should 'stating the obvious' not 'constitute advice'? The problem is that what's
    obvious to one player often is not obvious to another player in a given position,
    and so we might start down the 'slippery slope' of arguing about what *should be*
    'obvious' to both players (to all players?) in that position. W ...[text shortened]... lusion.
    Hardly anything seems to be 'obvious' in chess for many novice players.
    I didn't take your reply as an accusation at all, merely offering my take on the questions raised.
  12. 31 Mar '12 19:45
    Originally posted by Paul Leggett
    I have seen very strong players playing blitz and beginning the game with the king and queen on the opposite squares, and neither player notices until castling is attempted, which usually is good for a laugh all around.

    I'd say that even the initial starting position isn't obvious all the time!
    I observed a blitz game in which the players continued moving after the position
    was checkmate, resulting in a situation when one move it was checkmate, the
    next move it wasn't, the next move it was checkmate again, etc., and neither
    player noticed anything untoward for several moves. Earlier, both players had
    had their kings in check at the same time.

    Sometimes even the supposed final position (checkmate) is not obvious.