Originally posted by Big Orange Country..nor should it matter how one plays, i.e. back to your own original question..
...<zip zap> ..But the last time I checked, it doesn't matter how one wins. ..<zip zap>...I'm sure he scolds/forum bans people all the time for insulting others. Oh, the hipocrisy.
i.e. I'm with FabianFnas on this.
Originally posted by Big Orange CountrySee what assumption gets you?
I assumed jackass number 1 was referring to the time after I exchanged down. Now that jackass number two has backed up that far, yes, that is the easiest win. But the last time I checked, it doesn't matter how one wins. For me, it took much less thought to go my way, and I'd like to keep it that way. And that guy's a moderator on this site? I'm sure he scolds/forum bans people all the time for insulting others. Oh, the hipocrisy.
P-
Originally posted by Renarsand now in all honesty i wasn't trying to put the guy down for how he was playing. I was merely noting that the calibur of play did not match the calibur of the rating and wanted opinions on whether some foul play was at work. at the time, oddly enough, it never occurred to me that the guy might just be having one bad game or something like that, and then jackass number one comes on and calls me a "weak" player based on how I won the game.
yeah... first we litter 😉 well, to be fair it wasn't all that considerate and what goes around, comes around...
Originally posted by Big Orange CountryAre you a reincarnation of a former member?
and now in all honesty i wasn't trying to put the guy down for how he was playing. I was merely noting that the calibur of play did not match the calibur of the rating and wanted opinions on whether some foul play was at work. at the time, oddly enough, it never occurred to me that the guy might just be having one bad game or something like that, ...[text shortened]... nd then jackass number one comes on and calls me a "weak" player based on how I won the game.
Originally posted by Big Orange CountryThat's the fastest one I could find involving pawn promotion, however...
from the final position, i can only find a mating line in exactly 8 moves.
regardless of what white does,
... Re3
... Kd3
... Ke4
... d3
... d2
... d1=Q (+, depending on where the white king is)
... Qd2+
... Re1#
If I didn't make it clear in my last post, lemme try to restate myself.
yes, Re3+ then Rd3 is the fastest winning line fro ...[text shortened]... mes faster with promotion instead of the K and R mate jackass number 1 seemed to be advocating.
Black to move. Mate in 6. (I took the liberty of playing white's 54th move, Kf2.)
Originally posted by MeadowsI found
That's the fastest one I could find involving pawn promotion, however...
[fen]8/8/8/8/3p4/r7/2k2K2/8 b - - 0 54[/fen]
Black to move. Mate in 6. (I took the liberty of playing white's 54th move, Kf2.)
1 ... Kd1 as the first black move, continued by
2 Kf1 Ra2
3 Kg1 (forced) Ke1
4 Kh1 (forced) Kf2
5 Kh2 (forced) Ra3
6 Kh1 mate
but this doesn't require a promotion.
Originally posted by tamuziThat's why there is a special equation we use to establish ratings. Even if your statement made any sense it would have to be the majority of people doing this for it to affect the average.
I'm still convinced there are many players who only play people two or three hundred points lower than them, and such are much much weaker than their rating indicates.
Your statement doesn't make any sense because if a player wins 80% against weaker players(200 points below) they will have the same rating(roughly) if they score 50%-60%(didn't actually do the math just using logic) against players only +- 50 elo points.
Originally posted by tomtom232I'm glad I'm not the only one who was confused by that statement.
That's why there is a special equation we use to establish ratings. Even if your statement made any sense it would have to be the majority of people doing this for it to affect the average.
Your statement doesn't make any sense because if a player wins 80% against weaker players(200 points below) they will have the same rating(roughly) if they score 50%-60%(didn't actually do the math just using logic) against players only +- 50 elo points.
I think he means players who only play, say under 1400 players
in challenges so their grades only increaes by 1 or 2 pts at a time.
It will take time, but Eventually they will go way over 2000 even
though their real strength, if you can ever match such a thing by a
number, is only 1600.
Not sure if OP's point that his opponent was a cheat playing with the
box turned off. If not, then it's pretty close.
(possibly makes me jackass No.3).
- Joined
- 25 Jul 07
- Moves
- 28986
Originally posted by greenpawn34I was thinking about this a while ago - I had a couple of friends at work who I played on here. They were both less experienced than me, so had lower ratings, and I won lots of games .. but I didn't win all of them. In a sample of 30 or so games, I'd make one or two bad mistakes and lose, even to 'weaker' players.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who was confused by that statement.
I think he means players who only play, say under 1400 players
in challenges so their grades only increaes by 1 or 2 pts at a time.
It will take time, but Eventually they will go way over 2000 even
though their real strength, if you can ever match such a thing by a
number, is on ...[text shortened]... ith the
box turned off. If not, then it's pretty close.
(possibly makes me jackass No.3).
So I'd say that if someone is consistently solid enough to win 200 games in a row, even against lower rated players, they deserve the points.
Originally posted by greenpawn34But if they're really of 1600 strength, they'll lose some games against 1400 players and lose enough points to cover several wins. If they can win hundreds of games in a row against 1400 players, I don't think you can say that they're only of 1600 strength.
I think he means players who only play, say under 1400 players
in challenges so their grades only increaes by 1 or 2 pts at a time.
It will take time, but Eventually they will go way over 2000 even
though their real strength, if you can ever match such a thing by a
number, is only 1600.
It really seems that people do it though. Check through the 20 move mate list. You will see scores of games played by a relatively strong and a relatively weak player where just the knowledge of a certain gambit, or a certain sharp position puts the high ranked player ahead. (and then they constantly do it to low ranked players). Playing 80 scholars mate games against 80 different opponents who don't know of it is 80 easy wins, not 80 wins reflecting a "higher" skill.