I find the ratings correlate strongly with ratings from other sites, and other organizations. The higher the number of players the more accurate the ratings. Ratings on the tactical server may be a little skewed. I've only been there a few times, but I just can't play that fast. The faster I play the lower my rating. Maybe I'm just too old! 🙂
IMO, not very far down.
RHP Master Title Norms - Satisfying any one of these.
- If you appear, at any time even for one game, on the first page of the Player Rating Table. (non-prov of course). This is roughly ~2200 RHP Elo.
- Make it to the final group of the annual RHP championships (Candidates)
- Score 70% in any tournament with an average player rating of 2000 or higher . This is a performance rating of close to ~2200 (I think). I find these type of tournaments to be rare with limited players.
ONLY TOURNAMENT GAMES APPLY. You cannot pick your opposition.
Masters should consistently beat very good chess players which IMO are around 2000 on this site.
the only way I can see the whole thing making any sense, is that titles awarded by national federations or FIDE could be validated behind the scenes. just like on most sites.
a proprietary 'rhp title system' based on achieved rating or other similar measures, would only act as a further incentive to engine users.
Originally posted by wormwoodYeah, I realized as I was writing that the whole thing could be a sham due to engines and there is really no way to prevent it. Engines are a problem now even without titles.
the only way I can see the whole thing making any sense, is that titles awarded by national federations or FIDE could be validated behind the scenes. just like on most sites.
a proprietary 'rhp title system' based on achieved rating or other similar measures, would only act as a further incentive to engine users.
Consistant 2200s would be a bit too high really - that would mean any red hot pawn masters would be the equivilent of 2600+ grand masters (of which there are only a handful in the world). In real life there are the poor lowly International and fide masters who hardly get a look in on the grand scale but are nevertheless very good players in their own right, and very successful too - as long as they arent getting mauled by grands (which, sadly, is where most of their publicised games tend to lie)
I was thinking that getting to 2100, or even 2000 on here should warrant some sort of master respect.
Originally posted by !~TONY~!Oooo Tony - every game of chess is interesting.
I don't know about making it to 2000. I was over 2000 for a while, but I'm only about 2000-2100 USCF strength, and I don't really even try on games here unless I deem them really interesting.
Had email from F.I.D.E. - Masters on RHP are anyone over 1775 and under 1777.
SH76 - one day you will be a brilliant chess player and I'll be telling
the world I drew with you.
Yours
Greenpawn. (RHP Master - profile has been updated)
Originally posted by greenpawn34why you say in your profile you are the only master on this site ? What about them ?
Oooo Tony - every game of chess is interesting.
Had email from F.I.D.E. - Masters on RHP are anyone over 1775 and under 1777.
SH76 - one day you will be a brilliant chess player and I'll be telling
the world I drew with you.
Yours
Greenpawn. (RHP Master - profile has been updated)
onthewaytoGM
kamikazeking
greenpawn34
wingsubscriberwing
Chessjackal
wackelpudding
RookAttack
Berteldons
tacticalone
drsherlockholmes