Originally posted by wormwoodI have a horrible memory, and find it next to impossible to learn lines from a book. By using databases like chesslive, it has helped me learn a fair few lines purely through repetition (I don't really use my MCO for that reason, I didn't think I was really learning anything).
databases don't do much anything at 1500-level. just as futile as memorizing lines. slight opening advantages just are not enough to win yet.
I'm not getting blown away by 1800+ people in the opening anymore either, which is nice.
D
Okay, time to put my 2 cents in.
The whole comparison between USCF and RHP is flawed because most obviously of the fact that USCF is over the board and RHP is correspondence. Even USCF gives members separate ratings for different time controls. (blitz, rapid, slow) So, comparing different ratings between USCF and RHP is the equivalent of comparing free throw percentages in basketball to three point FG percentages.
That being said, you should first of all look at official Correspondence Chess ratings.
I do believe that the percentile method is the best, although still flawed, way of looking at it. I think if you try to set up a coefficient to adjust the ratings, you could a fairly accurate comparison between the two. I know that it wouldn't be perfect because the distribution of players is different between both, but I think that it is the best method we can come up with.
Originally posted by RahimKYeah, that's true. That rating doesn't men smack. If I were to tell the whole story, you'd say it doesn't even count. Short of it. Went to his Jacksonville Chess Club tournament. It was an open, and I played about two 1700 players, one 1550 player or so, and one 1360 player. All the games, I took White, and lost with the Stonewall Attack because I thought it would work. But, I never played Stonewall against tournament players after that. Thought if it worked against my computer, why not against them. Boy, was I wrong. Anyway, that rating is from under 20 games. Ten of which I played at that tournament with the Stonewall Attack. hehe Hilarious eh?
WARNING!
WARNING!
NOT ACTIVE OTB PLAYER
2/2 still.
Originally posted by arrakisYeah, that's true. If I used database and opening sources, I have no doubt I could break 1800 on here easily.
I have to agree with the first part of arc13's 2nd point. The "different environment" is a big difference of being able to look up opening moves and take whatever time you need to respond.
Practice has shown that postal players played an average of 200 points above their OTB rating for these very same reasons. HOWEVER, some players are here just to play f ...[text shortened]... variations. That explains why not all players are rated 200 points above their OTB strength.
Originally posted by RavelloWell, if you simply copy moves from an unannotated database, without engaging your brain, and then end up in middle games you don't understand you won't learn much and will probably lose games that you'd otherwise have won. On the other hand if you think about what you are doing then you'll find there's more benefits than just playing better in the game you are following database lines in.
Then why don't you do it?
You guys speak like if using opening databases worsens your chess......😞
Originally posted by GambitzoidI kind of agree with you. XanthosNZ et al are right in that the distributions aren't going to match properly, and that there'll be problems with bias and so on, but until you actually try the model out you don't know if it works, or can be made to work, or not.
Okay, time to put my 2 cents in.
The whole comparison between USCF and RHP is flawed because most obviously of the fact that USCF is over the board and RHP is correspondence. Even USCF gives members separate ratings for different time controls. (blitz, rapid, slow) So, comparing different ratings between USCF and RHP is the equivalent of comparing fre ...[text shortened]... players is different between both, but I think that it is the best method we can come up with.
You could try to make predictions for people's OTB ratings based on their RHP rating using percentiles and see if the model has any predictive quality. My guess is that you'll be able to get more or less the right averages, but that the variation between peoples actual OTB rating and their predicted OTB rating based on their RHP rating will make the model useless in any individual case.
Originally posted by wormwood2000 is difficult to get to. The stretch between 1800-2000 is the toughest to cross out of all the ratings ranges I've heard. I never intended to get to 2000. All I ever wanted out of chess is to maintain an 1800 USCF rating. That rating is plenty good enough for me. To maintain a 2000 rating, you need to study every day. I don't see that I am good enough to devote my entire life to chess. If I had the natural talen of a Josh Waitzkin or something, I might think about it. But, at my age, it's useless to think of getting good enough to make a living from chess. I'm fine being a strong class player. As far as databases, I have not the time to load of a database in the library or on a park bench with my laptop, and find the perfect moves. I take plenty of scalps on the beaches of Waikiki in real OTB games where I can take my time on my moves. I have plenty of time now to think though since moving to Hawaii. It's just the games I"m winning right now (against 1650+ players)... well these people won't resign, and my rating would jump clearly into the 1600s. jerbee47 is a great example. He's losing both games against me, and continues to play - just out of spite. That's 40+ points in the bag right there. That automatically breaks 1600. I'm also winning other games on top of that, but people fail to resign. So, I just don't worry about rating on RHP any longer. One day, jerbee47 will time out.
right. why not 2000 while you're at it.
Originally posted by masscatDatabases... just a way to help people to pass by their own creative ideas. Why play a line you don't understand? Why not just study tactics, endgame, and the most essential opening principles, and then and there play a real game of chess with forethought and creativity. I don't see any benefit in databases. But, I may be wrong. Who knows? But, I am better able to live with myself and my chess by not using anything but my own sheer playing ability.
Unless you understand the position all the books and databases will do is allow you to play longer before you blunder.
Originally posted by powershaker🙄
2000 is difficult to get to. The stretch between 1800-2000 is the toughest to cross out of all the ratings ranges I've heard. I never intended to get to 2000. All I ever wanted out of chess is to maintain an 1800 USCF rating. That rating is plenty good enough for me. To maintain a 2000 rating, you need to study every day. I don't see that I am good ...[text shortened]... I just don't worry about rating on RHP any longer. One day, jerbee47 will time out.
Originally posted by XanthosNZOh, by the way, Xanthos? When you looked up my USCF rating, you didn't see the correspondence rating of 1724, right? Well, here's the link to the uschess.org website with my USCF correspondence rating of 1724 and my national rating which is currently a lame 1152: http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12587475
🙄