Questions to Ask Myself

Originally posted by Drew L
Kmac once told me to sit on my hands while I think about my move.

It helped for a while, once I approached 1500 though I realized I needed to learn more about the game, sitting on my hands wasn't enough.

Whatever you learnt, it doesn't seem to be working.

Originally posted by magnublm
See this advice from Steve Lopez of Chessbase:

http://chessbaseusa.sectorlink.org/TNote.aspx?TNoteUrl=tn/Issues_Current/2003_0330.htm

Different individuals may require different study plans. For myself, looking at that Chessbase article, I disagree with some of the top recommendations. What has really improved my chess recently is:

(1) Play fewer games but spend more time on them. I've cut back to two games at a time, with three day turn-arounds, yet I find plenty to do for hours considering those games. I try to play at least one move per game each day, but take the extra time when I need it.

(2) Learn positional chess. Silman's "The Amateur's Mind" (2nd ed.) is excellent. But you have to actually read it, think about it, and apply it. The whole idea is to play with a plan: get sensible goals and then make all your subsequent moves work together to achieve that plan. Don't *just* move pieces with some vague notion of developing them to good squares.

(3) Spend time on opening study: find a few (maybe three) openings you can use to play almost all games, then really get to know them. This takes time. Use opening databases (deeply, not superficially) to try to get a good middlegame position. This process will teach you something about the strategies and pitfalls of each opening. (Obviously I am assuming correspondence chess here.) Note that in the game I most recently started, I fell into the bad old habit of moving hastily, and blew the opening on my second move. Now I have a tough game to contend with if White plays his cards right.

(4) Calculate variations. That is, think in advance, considering what you want to do and what your opponent may want to do. Try to stop your opponent from achieving his goals as a part (but only a part) of achieving your own. There is no reason why you can't do this when playing correspondence chess. It takes discipline to develop the habit (just as it takes discipline to finish reading a chess book you started). Use the analysis board when online and a regular chessboard when offline. If you get tired, quit and go back to it again later. You may have to do this several times before you move if you want to have the best chance of catching your mistakes and getting good results. Don't assume that some line is good -- take it far enough along that you are convinced that it is or isn't. And don't assume that your opponent will do X if it is also possible that he might do Y and Z. Find a move that will improve your position regardless of what he does.


Managing to do these things takes a lot of practice and willpower. Managing to do them well takes even more practice. I'm still aspiring to be a good player.

Originally posted by Mad Rook
I'm not sure you can necessarily assume you're in a rut with only 62 games played. That said, having only read less than one tactics book, my guess is that you need to practice lots more tactics. (Either from books, PC tactics software, or online tactics servers.) And I wouldn't worry yet about not being able to see multiple moves deep at this point.

I'd ...[text shortened]... Dan's Home chess page:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/danheisman/Main_Chess/chess.htm

I don't think the ratings are "generally inflated" because many people play on this site when drunk or hi and many people play moves they wouldn't normally play to see what happens. and considering that there are GMs on this site yet nobody is in the 2500 range rating on this site the ratings are more likely lower than average.

Originally posted by tomtom232
I don't think the ratings are "generally inflated" because many people play on this site when drunk or hi and many people play moves they wouldn't normally play to see what happens. and considering that there are GMs on this site yet nobody is in the 2500 range rating on this site the ratings are more likely lower than average.

If you're going to reference one of my posts, all I ask is that you at least reference it correctly. My exact words were, "One thing to remember - The RHP ratings don't necessarily correlate to USCF ratings. At least at the levels you and I are at, I think the RHP ratings are generally inflated compared to USCF ratings."

Please notice that I included the phrase "At least at the levels you and I are at". That meant that I was talking about the lower levels, not the higher levels. I have a USCF rating, and, believe me, it's not that good. I've looked over many RHP 1200 to RHP 1600 games played by others here, and in my opinion, those RHP games generally are not up to the skill level of the correspondingly rated USCF otb games that I've either watched or participated in. Of course, there will be some exceptions - A small minority of lower rated people here might actually have lower RHP ratings than their USCF ratings. But notice that I used the word "generally". So, at least at the lower levels here, I stand by my previous statement.

Edit - P.S. In case you're not aware, the only reason that I originally brought up the subject of comparative RHP vs USCF ratings is that much of Dan Heisman's advice is keyed to players' USCF ratings. I didn't want SilentSpic to read Dan's advice and think that Dan's USCF rating levels were always equal to RHP ratings.

Originally posted by Drew L
Kmac once told me to sit on my hands while I think about my move.

It helped for a while, once I approached 1500 though I realized I needed to learn more about the game, sitting on my hands wasn't enough.

He told me the same thing. I kept blitzing my games with him and making rediculous blunders. Now, I've gotten a little better about it... 😉

Originally posted by Mad Rook
My exact words were, "One thing to remember - The RHP ratings don't necessarily correlate to USCF ratings. At least at the levels you and I are at, I think the RHP ratings are generally inflated compared to USCF ratings."

Using a a sample size of 1 (me), I would have to disagree with you. My USCF regular rating is 1677, my USCF corr is 1764.

I typically hover just above 1600 +-100 and every so often I crack 1700 only to fall way back to the lower end of 1500s (I just end up getting a bunch of my won games finished a bunch, followed of course by my losses).

Originally posted by Kepler
The engine you are talking about here runs on fancy hardware and has been tuned especially for the job. Yes, it will consistently thrash grandmasters, but the average engine running on average off the shelf hardware will get soundly walloped by any grandmaster worthy of the title.

that's not even nearly true for engines like rybka.

Originally posted by tomtom232
I don't think the ratings are "generally inflated" because many people play on this site when drunk or hi and many people play moves they wouldn't normally play to see what happens. and considering that there are GMs on this site yet nobody is in the 2500 range rating on this site the ratings are more likely lower than average.

that's interesting. can you name those GMs?

Originally posted by zebano
Using a a sample size of 1 (me), I would have to disagree with you. My USCF regular rating is 1677, my USCF corr is 1764.

I typically hover just above 1600 +-100 and every so often I crack 1700 only to fall way back to the lower end of 1500s (I just end up getting a bunch of my won games finished a bunch, followed of course by my losses).

You're on the upper end of the rating band that I was discussing, and you may be one of the exceptions to the rule that I mentioned. But, given the huge sample size of 1 that you mentioned, your disagreement is duly noted. However, it doesn't change my original opinion.

Edit 2 - I just noticed that your profile mentions that you will usually be moving quickly on RHP. Is it possible that you may be moving faster than the average player on RHP? If so, that might be a reason why your RHP rating isn't inflated.

Originally posted by tomtom232
I don't think the ratings are "generally inflated" because many people play on this site when drunk or hi and many people play moves they wouldn't normally play to see what happens. and considering that there are GMs on this site yet nobody is in the 2500 range rating on this site the ratings are more likely lower than average.

A couple more comments:
1) The reasons why people might play below their best ability on RHP (thus possibly resulting in inflated RHP ratings) are totally irrelevant. Either the RHP ratings are inflated compared to USCF ratings, or they aren't. The reasons don't matter for the purposes of this discussion.
2) Although my original opinion didn't include the higher RHP ratings, I, too, would be interested to know which RHP players are GMs. In support of your argument, please list the GMs that you know play here. (I do note that out of the RHP top 50, of the profiles that mention elo ratings, two out of the three players have RHP ratings higher than their elo ratings. Korch RHP 2249 vs FIDE elo 2169, Stephane RHP 2243 vs FIDE elo 2356 (although his RHP rating was recently over 2300), and JavierChaca RHP 2134 vs elo 2100 approx.)

Originally posted by Mad Rook
You're on the upper end of the rating band that I was discussing, and you may be one of the exceptions to the rule that I mentioned. But, given the huge sample size of 1 that you mentioned, your disagreement is duly noted. However, it doesn't change my original opinion.

Edit 2 - I just noticed that your profile mentions that you will usually be moving qu ...[text shortened]... the average player on RHP? If so, that might be a reason why your RHP rating isn't inflated.

I do move quickly here. However if everyone takes there time, there won't be overall inflation. Think about it: If taking your time makes you better, all that happens is your 1500 here is a little bit stronger than a 1500 on a site where they don't, everyone's rating can't be higher.

Originally posted by zebano
I do move quickly here. However if everyone takes there time, there won't be overall inflation. Think about it: If taking your time makes you better, all that happens is your 1500 here is a little bit stronger than a 1500 on a site where they don't, everyone's rating can't be higher.

That's exactly my point. It could very well be that not everyone takes his time, especially at the lower levels that I'm talking about. I've seen a lot of really crappy play here in the 1200 to 1400 band that clearly isn't at the 1200 to 1400 USCF skill level. It might be that these RHP players are playing too quickly, but that doesn't change the fact that the play is crappy.

Originally posted by diskamyl
that's not even nearly true for engines like rybka.

Really? Go on then, name me ten GMs Rybka has beaten consistently while running on a single processor PC bought off the shelf in PC World without any fancy additions or upgrades. You will also need to provide some evidence that your list of ten is actually true and that the PC involved was an average PC.

Originally posted by Kepler
Really? Go on then, name me ten GMs Rybka has beaten consistently while running on a single processor PC bought off the shelf in PC World without any fancy additions or upgrades. You will also need to provide some evidence that your list of ten is actually true and that the PC involved was an average PC.

I can't do that. not all arguments work that way (in an empirical and certain, solely factual way).

I can't tell you names of 10 GMs rybka has beaten consistently, because she hasn't played that number of GMs. however, let's do some reasoning. check out the rating list on this site:

http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/40_40%20Rating%20List/40_40%20BestVersion/13.html

rybka running on a computer with one processor, has a +23 =19 -8 result against Deep Fritz 10 running on 4 processors. Deep Fritz, has beaten Kramnik quite comfortably (in that match, fritz was on a probably better hardware, but I think that's not enough for being a crucial factor). that should be one way to get to my claim. I think it's pretty convincing.

the other way is, rybka has beaten (again very comfortably) 2 GMs in pawn odds, and 1 in "everything but pawn odds" (that includes rybka having no opening book, half the time the GM has and always being black), and it wasn't running on a super computer like the fritz was running in against Kramnik. it was on pretty good hardware, but the pawn and the difference between that hardware and the average pc should compensate.

Originally posted by Mad Rook
That's exactly my point. It could very well be that not everyone takes his time, especially at the lower levels that I'm talking about. I've seen a lot of really crappy play here in the 1200 to 1400 band that clearly isn't at the 1200 to 1400 USCF skill level. It might be that these RHP players are playing too quickly, but that doesn't change the fact that the play is crappy.

I think you're jumping the gun: according to your record, you've played just ten games here, only four of which were with players who are (now) above 1300. Everyone here starts out at 1200, and provisional ratings fluctuate notoriously.

So, you really don't have a large enough statistical sample of opponents here to make generalizations about the level of play of RHP participants.