How many people have OTB grades? If a few people would post theirs it would help illustrate roughly how they compare. (Of course some people are much better at correspondence chess than OTB, but it would give a rough idea perhaps... myself I have a national elso of around 1850
Originally posted by welsharnieI'm not a good representation, as I'm much better at coorespondence, and I've only played a few OTB tournaments. But here are mine.
How many people have OTB grades? If a few people would post theirs it would help illustrate roughly how they compare. (Of course some people are much better at correspondence chess than OTB, but it would give a rough idea perhaps... myself I have a national elso of around 1850
USCF: p1234
RHP: 1866
OTB rating 1824 when stopped. Have only played casually over the years so my progress has been slight. Currently at 1829 here, should be able to get up to about 1900, likely won't progress beyond that as I don't have the time or inclination to study.
ratings scheme is roughly as follows --
<1200 beginner (getting the hang of the basic principles)
1200-1400 class D (beginning to understand and apply them)
1400-1600 class C (falling for less gross blunders)
1600 seems to be something of a benchmark for potential. It's the level of the "average club player". If you can get beyond 1600, you often have the potential to go much further, especially if under 40 years old.
1600-1800 class B ( "good club player" )
1800-2000 class A ( "strong club player" )
2000-2200 expert ( sometimes called "candidate master" )
2200-2400 master
2400-2500 international master
2500 and beyond- grandmaster
current strongest players in the world are around 2750-2800
There are different progressions in development that can best be characterized as "breakthroughs", sometimes described mysteriously as "I just got good" (Fischer's famous words). These usually happen as a result of effort more than anything, although talent certainly helps.
A few suggestions to improve --
1. Never play "unrated" games. Playing only "rated" games is a way of improving faster because you will be trying harder every game. The ratings don't ultimately matter. They are simply a device, if you will, to get you to focus more, to bear down. In the very bearing down, more neuronal pathways are being made in your brain, which results in "seeing" tactics and strategies more clearly.
2. Avoid mechanical, repetitive play. Play each move (even well known opening theory) as if for the first time. Be present with the board.
3. Never assume your opponent won't "see" a certain move. Always assume he will make the best possible move.
4. When out of the opening, develop a plan. Aimless play is usually a good recipe to lose. Avoid drifting along.
5. Master basic tactics.
6. Always scan the board for a possible unexpected move. (This was one of Tal's suggestions).
7. Try hard! The simplest and best suggestion. Guys who get to be good at this game put great effort into it. Chess is 90% focus and resolve.
8. Don't take it too seriously. It's just a game, if a grand one. Use chess as a metaphor for life, as a stepping stone for self-development. Learn to develop a sense of humor about your losses. Don't beat yourself up over them. (Chess can actually be an incredibly humorous game, once we stop taking losses too seriously). And if you find yourself calculating variations in your head while in your car driving, about a correspondence game you have going on, this might be the sign you need to develop more interests in life, LOL.
Originally posted by MetamorphosisActually, when I frequented chess clubs, I found the average player running at about 1350. If you played at the 1600 level, you were in the top 10% of the players. Here on RHP, to get into the top 700 active players (top 10😵, you need a rating of about 1590.
(much snippage)
1600 seems to be something of a benchmark for potential. It's the level of the "average club player".
Originally posted by CrawlIceThe weird smiley above is a percent symbol.
Actually, when I frequented chess clubs, I found the average player running at about 1350. If you played at the 1600 level, you were in the top 10% of the players. Here on RHP, to get into the top 700 active players (top 10😵, you need a rating of about 1590.
This is interesting. I know of quite a few reasons why my rating here is so much higher than in Chessmaster, where I've only played rather short games:
- I believe my lack of experience (I started playing half a year ago) is a much bigger problem in shorter games than in correspondence chess. I know some theory, but due to my lack of experience I need a lot of time to apply it, while a more experienced player will recognize many positions instantly. The replies in this thread so far seem to confirm this: Those who have higher OTB ratings than correspondence ratings seem to be more experienced players.
- My opening knowledge is still very limited. It helps a great deal to be allowed to use opening databases (and it's nice because I learn while playing). This adds to the difference between beginners and experienced players.
- My visual perception, imagination and memory are pretty bad. The first means it takes longer for me to understand the position (no problem in correspondence chess because you have plenty of time), the second means I have difficulty to think several moves ahead without actually moving the pieces (no problem in correspondence chess because I can use the analyze board), the third means it's hard to memorize openings or positions I have played before (not such a big problem in correspondence chess because you can look it up).
I wonder if there are other factors. I especially wonder if there are any abilities you need for correspondence chess, but not or not to the same degree for OTB chess. While I can understand why people could have about the same rating in OTB and correspondence chess, I still find it hard to understand why someone would have a higher OTB rating.