27 Nov '08 15:19>
how come most banded tourneys have the top end at 1800+?...this puts us at an extreme disadvantage when 2000+ players enter
Originally posted by DjincYeah, but it wouldn't be nice to win tournaments once in a while?
My rating right now is approaching 1400. When I encounter someone with a rating approaching 1600, I do not start getting my excuses in order by thinking it's actually a mis-match. I am thinking to myself, " Come on with it, bully. You can't beat me." I start each and every game fully expecting to win, and should it become apparant that I will not win, I start ...[text shortened]... s to approach 1800, that person with the 2000 rating will be viewed as a stepping stone. 🙂
Originally posted by AikoIf you are perfectly happy with losing, that tells me that an 1800+ rating is not anywhere on the horizon for you. 🙂 I, too, am involved in a couple of touraments, but, they are both banded, and my rating at the time of entry was artificially deflated by my having had internet service knocked out for over a month by hurricane Ike while having a whole bunch of games going. I had only recently found this site and had completed very few games, and then got a timed-out on a bunch of games that I would have won. It would have taken an act of God to keep me from beating them. But, fortunately for them, that is exactly what they got. Divine intervention.🙂 I am confident that I will win both of these touraments, and the wins will mean nothing, because it's a tournament against people that, in a fair and just situation, my rating would drop for beating them, because I shouldn't even be playing them in a tournament in the first place. The point of that is this. A tournament win, in and of itself, is pretty meaningless if you are playing people with less than a top shelf game. Competing against higher ranked players is an opportunity to excel, not a reason complain. 🙂
Totally happy with it.
Awaiting my soon-to-be fourth tournament win, though...
Originally posted by BriscoeThat's an interesting way to look at it. For me, when someone really kicks me to sleep in a hurry, that means that there is a fundemental principle of the game that has escaped my notice entirely up until then. I bring my queen out on move #3. I get my queen taken away from on move #8, or am so tangled up from trying to avoid losing my queen for a bishop that I can't possibly win. This is a very valuable lesson. My opponent employs the sicilian defense, has total control of d5 and comes pouring through the c file and pushes me off of the board. Another valuable lesson. Leave the queen back for a while. Fight tooth and claw for control of d5. Don't have my rooks bulkheaded behind my own pawns. I have the bishop, my opponent has the knight, open up the board. I learned what conditions are favorable for each piece by having someone pound me with that piece. I came to appreciate the value of a healthy pawn chain by having someone decimate mine. 🙂 I learn a lot more by getting dragged through fire, because less extreme examples of the same principles are what make for an end game that is less than favorable. It's always 'back to basics'. Maybe I didn't lose my queen, , but I did fall behind by two moves. It's the same principle. I neglected development in favor of a premature, flimsy assault. But, different folks learn in different ways. 🙂
you learn more in close games than you do getting your arse kicked...and I don't find too many 1800 rated players that have "kicked back"
Originally posted by DjincIt gets a bit harder to stop dropping your queen when you get over 1600.
That's an interesting way to look at it. For me, when someone really kicks me to sleep in a hurry, that means that there is a fundemental principle of the game that has escaped my notice entirely up until then. I bring my queen out on move #3. I get my queen taken away from on move #8, or am so tangled up from trying to avoid losing my queen for a bishop that ...[text shortened]... n favor of a premature, flimsy assault. But, different folks learn in different ways. 🙂
Originally posted by randolphI have no problem with losing my queen, I have a game going as we speak in which I lost my queen. Of course, I got both of his rooks, a bishop and a pawn for it, but I did lose my queen. 🙂
It gets a bit harder to stop dropping your queen when you get over 1600.
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexClearly, you are an excellent player. You say that, in games with 2200+ players, you feel as if you were never really in the game in a competive way. If you don't mind my asking, do see it slipping away, and understand how this is being done to you, as in, "My opponent is doing X-Y-Z in a more effective manner than I am" or is it that you seem to just sort of get pushed off of the back side of the board without really having a full grasp on how that was accomplished?
It gets even worse - the gap between 2000 and 2200 is huge. I often find 1800s give me quite a tough game and it can be a struggle to win against them, but when I play 2200s I almost always get wiped out convincingly without ever really having much of a chance.
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexI think it´s a matter of perspective. I think the gap between 1,400 and 1,600 is the same as the gap between 2,000 and 2,200. The difference is that when you are playing a 1,600 the severity of the mistakes they make against you is such that there is no effective difference between them and a 1,400 - you´re still going to win most of the time, The real difference with the 2,000 - 2,200 gap for you is that at 2,000 you are playing players about as good as you and it´s going to be difficult. At 2,200 you are playing against people who are significantly better and they are going to give you real problems.
It gets even worse - the gap between 2000 and 2200 is huge. I often find 1800s give me quite a tough game and it can be a struggle to win against them, but when I play 2200s I almost always get wiped out convincingly without ever really having much of a chance.