Only Chess
07 Oct 05
07 Oct 05
Originally posted by TRAINS44It's possible to go from 1400 to 1899 in a year or two if you go on some crazy chess study program and spend a lot of time on the game. DeLe Maza will advocate it is possible. However, to go from 1400 to 2000 in just under 3 months, seems like the study plan to become the ultimate leader of the free world! If she really has a way to learn that quickly and effectively, let's hear it! 😀
Mr. Umalakas, Are you thinkin what I'm thinkin? It took me a year to get to 1900. How is it that..................
07 Oct 05
Originally posted by zakkwylderThis should not be discussed in public, and certainly not when that person is not contributing to the thread.
Has anyone considered the possibility that maybe she started playing more games and thus won more. Hence, the rating increase. Just a thought.
07 Oct 05
Originally posted by UmalakasHow about this guy I'm playin now?? Oct 1 was 1405, now 1716!!! Everyone he played was 1400 and 1500. Highest he played before me was 1620. Explain that please. 310 in a week?????
It's possible to go from 1400 to 1899 in a year or two if you go on some crazy chess study program and spend a lot of time on the game. DeLe Maza will advocate it is possible. However, to go from 1400 to 2000 in just under 3 months, seems like the study plan to become the ultimate leader of the free world! If she really has a way to learn that quickly and effectively, let's hear it! 😀
07 Oct 05
Originally posted by zakkwylderIsn't chess a game of medians and averages? How does more games make a difference and increase rating? If anything, the more you play, the harder it is to keep the rating you have as lower players constantly try to knock you off. How many games have I played, has it been a lot? Indeed, this post is simply irelevant to the topic at hand, I fail to see what the "GP" stat has to do with anything. Unless you are implying, by playing more games and playing as many as possible, you learn quicker? But isn't that a paradox on RHP? Because you would be playing more games simul and spend less time on each, no?
Has anyone considered the possibility that maybe she started playing more games and thus won more. Hence, the rating increase. Just a thought.
07 Oct 05
Originally posted by UmalakasI wouldn't call that a "slight spike", and she went up to 1787, not 1700. Then she went down about 200 points within a week. There could be several reasons for that, for example resigning a lot of games to reduce the game load. The same happens again a bit later. Even then, her rating didn't drop below 1480, so I don't know where you get the 1400 from. You have to go back to January to get to a rating below 1400.
Correction, it's been about 2-3 months, she had a slight spike in one month up to 1700, but she's been mostly 1400-1550, then suddenly, the past 2 and a half months, she's jumped to almost 2000! Seriously look at the graph, it's bushed! I'm not implying anything hostile dear worshipers of RHP. I just want advice on the miraculous, genius like improveme ...[text shortened]... d normally take hard working players years to acheive! That is all, be it, diplomatic, but firm.
07 Oct 05
Originally posted by UmalakasYou fail to recognize the significance of my statement. The more games played, the more you can win. It is a possibility that Nyxie has the ability to successfully handle many games simultaneously. If this is the case, playing more games would result in more wins and more points. Hence the climb in rating.
Isn't chess a game of medians and averages? How does more games make a difference and increase rating? If anything, the more you play, the harder it is to keep the rating you have as lower players constantly try to knock you off. How many games have I played, has it been a lot? Indeed, this post is simply irelevant to the topic at hand, I fail to see what ...[text shortened]... a paradox on RHP? Because you would be playing more games simul and spend less time on each, no?
07 Oct 05
Originally posted by TRAINS44He's bottom feeding. He slightly improved at a certain time of the year (like we all do), and just continued to play players around his PREVIOUS level feeding off them. He will likely, in all mathematical likelihood, balance out around 1670 for a while, that's just a guess, could be wrong though. It's not as extreme as going from 1450 to a 2000 rated expert/master in a few months. This is all interesting talk, but I am aware some may be offended by it and the mods may police, it would be nice to hear from this "Nyxie" mind you. I am aware she is well liked and respected here, but I'd like to hear from her what her study plan involves.
How about this guy I'm playin now?? Oct 1 was 1405, now 1716!!! Everyone he played was 1400 and 1500. Highest he played before me was 1620. Explain that please. 310 in a week?????
07 Oct 05
Originally posted by UmalakasThen maybe you should have PMed her before posting all this in a public forum. That would have been the honourable thing to do.
it would be nice to hear from this "Nyxie" mind you. I am aware she is well liked and respected here, but I'd like to hear from her what her study plan involves.
07 Oct 05
Originally posted by zakkwylderSo she has a better ability to win with more simul games, then less games? That doesn't make much sense. Consider also, when she was playing less games, her opponents were also playing many simul, and they still beat her. Look at the past games of hers a few months ago and the present, in the past, she was hanging peices deliberately and in simple ways, now she's a master, they don't even compare.
You fail to recognize the significance of my statement. The more games played, the more you can win. It is a possibility that Nyxie has the ability to successfully handle many games simultaneously. If this is the case, playing more games would result in more wins and more points. Hence the climb in rating.
07 Oct 05
Originally posted by dottewellNo, I think we all should know, not just me. I imagine others want to know also, so why not just stick it all in one place? Why spam her mail?
Then maybe you should have PMed her before posting all this in a public forum. That would have been the honourable thing to do.
07 Oct 05
Originally posted by UmalakasI would point out that you went from 1190 to 1930 in a matter of 4 days. Shut your mouth and play chess. Quit attacking people just because you feel victimized by people you haven't even played. And stop feeding off of the lesser rated. With the exception of 3 games, everyone you've played and beaten is at least 300+ points lower than you.
07 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by UmalakasBecause, whether it is your intention or not, you are suggesting she may be getting "outside help". That is an extremely serious allegation and one that should not be made publically until there is a considerable weight of evidence.
No, I think we all should know, not just me. I imagine others want to know also, so why not just stick it all in one place? Why spam her mail?
[And, according to the system here, not until there is enough evidence to kick someone off the site]
07 Oct 05
Originally posted by zakkwylderLOL! "Feeding" off the lower rated is hardly what I do, every game I played with a player, at the time it started, I was higher rated then them. Seeing that this site doesn't account the rating vs rating when the game starts, you are misled. Besides, do you know my culture? We are kinda, well, like arrogant arseholes, sorry!
I would point out that you went from 1190 to 1930 in a matter of 4 days. Shut your mouth and play chess. Quit attacking people just because you feel victimized by people you haven't even played. And stop feeding off of the lesser rated. With the exception of 3 games, everyone you've played and beaten is at least 300+ points lower than you.
07 Oct 05
Originally posted by dottewellI am not suggesting anything. I am simply posting statistics and questions. I think you don't understand.
Because, whether it is your intention or not, you are suggesting she may be getting "outside help". That is an extremely serious allegation and one that should not be made publically until there is a considerable weight of evidence.
[And, according to the system here, not until there is enough evidence to kick someone off the site]