Originally posted by robbie carrobieYermolinsky's book has a table with this information, but all I remember is that an 1800 player blunders less frequently than a 1600. Yes, that is how masters view us. 😞
players I mean, what differentiates in terms of strength an 1800 rated player from a player rated 2000?
Originally posted by SwissGambitI am seriously interested in that book, tis it a good read, i was looking at the reviews
Yermolinsky's book has a table with this information, but all I remember is that an 1800 player blunders less frequently than a 1600. Yes, that is how masters view us. 😞
on Amazon yesterday, some were saying that its an advanced book, 2000+ and it
makes perfect sense, because chess is essentially a game of errors. Carlsen for
example is rated above everyone else not because he wins more games, but because
he loses less.
If follows that we should play not to win chess games, but not to lose them.
I recall doing a Corner Years ago with a blunder table.
Just found it.
http://www.chessedinburgh.co.uk/chandlerarticle.php?ChandID=197
The difference between an 1800 and 2000 player is on the whole and from
what I have seen. An 1800 player needs at least to be two pawns up to
convert to a win. A 2000 player should only need one but it was all tongue in cheek.
I did a moves per blunder table a long time ago in a mag. Forget where.
Of course you don't need a magazine, a table or a book by a GM to tell you
under 2000's blunder more than 2000+ players. It's obvious they do.
Often there will be no difference in playing strentgh between an 1800 and 2000 player.
It may simply come down to where you live.
Your OTB grade is based soley on the grade of the player you meet and if
you just play Div II league chess and the occasional lower class tournament then
your grade may not reflect your true capability.
Not that any number under 2000 can infact truly show how good a player is.
It's just a guidline, an indication and nothing more.
OTB If you are over 2200 then you are good, over 2500 then you are very good.
Originally posted by greenpawn34very interesting reading that article GP. I used to often wonder when i heard or read
I recall doing a Corner Years ago with a blunder table.
Just found it.
http://www.chessedinburgh.co.uk/chandlerarticle.php?ChandID=197
The difference between an 1800 and 2000 player is on the whole and from
what I have seen. An 1800 player needs at least to be two pawns up to
convert to a win. A 2000 player should only need one but it was all ...[text shortened]... thing more.
OTB If you are over 2200 then you are good, over 2500 then you are very good.
that such and such was playing for a win, because i essentially assumed that all chess
players want to play for a win, but sometimes the opportunity has not arisen during the
game.
Most people get to 1800 by not overlooking basic 3 move tactics.
A 2000 is pretty much an 1800 but with either a thought out opening repertoire or a lot experience playing certain middle game schemes. You see a lot of young kids and old men who sit around 2000. For the kids, it' often temporary as they build up experience.
- Joined
- 26 Aug 11
- Moves
- 10242
I don't think a rating difference of 200 to 300 points really matters,
as long as both players, played it in a clean match.
Below is my supported examples of it:
Game 9320540, Game 9175826, Game 9172836,
Game 9173756, Game 9327064, Game 9328986
etc..
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI remember playing against a guy at the unrated chess tournaments that the Army held as a recreational activity for soldiers while I was still in the Army. He told me he was a candidate master and only needed a few more points to get to the master level. His name started with a B and is almost on the tip of my tongue, but I just can't think of it right now. Anyway he always beat everyone pretty easily, even me, except for this one time. He got too relaxed, I guess, and made a mistake and I nursed it home for my only win against him and he was a good 600 USCF points above me.
players I mean, what differentiates in terms of strength an 1800 rated player from a player rated 2000?
- Joined
- 26 Aug 11
- Moves
- 10242
Mr. RJHinds, People tell or share their stories. But in Webserver Site like this,
Players always wanted to see the proof. Why? Because it's easy to say things specially
without a proof. I can also say, I have wins & draws with "Over-the-board" Grandmasters,
International Masters, etc.. But the real question is where is the proof? Now would you really
reveal yourself in a training site like this?, when your real purpose of joining here is only to
harness your Photographic Memory, in preparation of your real Over-the-board competition?
Of course not!! That is why, some players like me, only take home the one I lost. Why?
because that's the one worth note taking you paid for. Losses opens learning.
Have you hear that before? Maybe not.
[b]That's why, Silicon "Cheap" Users are so clueless that Chips will only help
cripple their Mental gift that they possess. On top of that, You are not really growing
in the game, but rather regressing. Now that's what chips rewards you. it prevents you from
using your natural gift. Now Mr. RJHinds, It was a "free lecture". intended was just for you. 🙂
Would you say Thank you to me in your mind? You don't have to respond.
I will also respond to you in my mind, that you are welcome. 🙂
Originally posted by jcmessyWhen those games were played your rating was 1900-2000.
I don't think a rating difference of 200 to 300 points really matters,
as long as both players, played it in a clean match.
[b]Below is my supported examples of it:
Game 9320540, Game 9175826, Game 9172836,
Game 9173756, Game 9327064, Game 9328986
etc..[/b]
Originally posted by jcmessyHere is information on Rex Blalock. It says he earned his master title before 1991 and uscf does not keep records of games before then. I played him before 1991 and he said he was candidate master then. He apparently had a break from playing USCF rated games like I did. It looks like he may not be as good now even though he still has a rating of 2216 for I see he lost to a much lower rated person since he came back. Of course I am not as good as I was then either
Mr. RJHinds, People tell or share their stories. But in Webserver Site like this,
Players always wanted to see the proof. Why? Because it's easy to say things specially
without a proof. [b]I can also say, I have wins & draws with "Over-the-board" Grandmasters,
International Masters, etc.. But the real question is where is the proof? Now would yo 't have to respond.
I will also respond to you in my mind, that you are welcome. 🙂
http://main.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMilestones.php?11089739
http://main.uschess.org/datapage/gamestats.php?memid=11089739
Originally posted by RJHindsRonald, start your own 'before I was a world war one flying ace I played Alechine in a
I finally remembered the guys name. It is Rex Blalock. I looked him up on the USCF website and I see he is living in Alabama now. It says he has a national master certificate but only a candidate master norm. His rating now is 2216.
prisoner of war camp,' thread! This is for discussing any differences, subtle or
otherwise between 1800 rated players and 2000 rated players.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieChessPraxis already answered that. It is 200 rating points. 😏
Ronald, start your own 'before I was a world war one flying ace I played Alechine in a
prisoner of war camp,' thread! This is for discussing any differences, subtle or
otherwise between 1800 rated players and 2000 rated players.