26 Apr 06
Originally posted by tonytiger41Ahh...that's cute. You fight back by calling me a poor player.
i find your reply to pretty lame as your response conveys that good is indeed relative. in absolute terms, 1200 is a really low rating; one could achieve such levels with miminal effort and little time.
Ok, let's back up a second. Only a retard would say that the term "good" isn't relative. You waste my time by arguing that point.
However, I believe that the original poster did imply that he would like a specification in the answers. So, in other words, you could respond "where I live, yadda yadda," or "In the serious chess players world, yadda yadda." It really isn't that hard, perhaps you should try it.
26 Apr 06
Originally posted by DraxusI still think a good player would have a C+ average or better in comparison to grades. When the player hits 80s and up, then he's getting good. What do you think?
Ahh...that's cute. You fight back by calling me a poor player.
Ok, let's back up a second. Only a retard would say that the term "good" isn't relative. You waste my time by arguing that point.
However, I believe that the original poster did imply that he would like a specification in the answers. So, in other words, you could respond "where I live, ...[text shortened]... ss players world, yadda yadda." It really isn't that hard, perhaps you should try it.
26 Apr 06
Originally posted by powershakerFunny,months ago when you promised to climb quickly to your "true" rating of 1800 you used to say that only players over 1800 could be considered "good".
If you're in the top 30% of all chess players, wouldn't that also mean you are a good player? Or just a decent player? I would think if you're in the top 30% of all chess players, that's not saying you're bad. I would say an 1800 "A Class" player would be considered abnormally strong if he's in the 15% of all chess players. I would say a 1500 player ...[text shortened]... grandmaster considered phenomenal. Fair enough? So, I think I'm good! So there! hehe
Now you see that you aren't able to climb to 1800 and you start saying that 1500 can be considered "good".
26 Apr 06
2 edits
Originally posted by RavelloOh, no! I still have the capability to play at 1800 strength, but - as many other players on here - my RHP rating is not a true reflection of my OTB strength. It's nothing to worry about in my mind. You were just reading what you wanted to read to strengthen your flaming comment. I understand. Keep on trying. You'll get there someday. *giggle*
Funny,months ago when you promised to climb quickly to your "true" rating of 1800 you used to say that only players over 1800 could be considered "good".
Now you see that you aren't able to climb to 1800 and you start saying that 1500 can be considered "good".
By the way, here is my latest triumph over a 1000 rated player. I hope you enjoy it. I'm quite proud of it: Game 2005437 Give it up for menace. He's a good player, and he has nothing to be ashamed of. He did his best. *giggle*
26 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by wormwoodWell, I'm about to hit over 1600 when jerbee times out. He's crying right now. And, it's zugzwang. He only has one move. Plus, I'm getting a red riding hood B.B. gun for Christmas! What are you getting? I bet mine's shinier than yours! *giggle*
I'm just about to reach 1700, where are you 'shaker? 🙂
Bucky
Little game I am playing with jerbee: Game 1776520
26 Apr 06
Originally posted by powershakerYou talk,talk,talk,but you started to say it in September and you still have to reach it.
Oh, no! I still have the capability to play at 1800 strength, but - as many other players on here - my RHP rating is not a true reflection of my OTB strength. It's nothing to worry about in my mind. You were just reading what you wanted to read to strengthen your flaming comment. I understand. Keep on trying. You'll get there someday. *giggle*
...[text shortened]... enace. He's a good player, and he has nothing to be ashamed of. He did his best. *giggle*
If you already were a 1800 player ,then 8 months is enough to recover to your "right" rating ,don't you think?
Now I start to think that I'll never see the day when you'll reach 1800 (or 1700 at least) as you bragged about back in the day.
P.S.:posting a game where you beat a 900 player doesn't help other people to think that you're a "1800 strength"
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
26 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by RavelloHe probably means 1800 USCF which is about 1700 elo. Still you would have expected him to do a little better.......could never quite picture a 1700 rated OTB player losing to someone under 1300 (at the time) here.
You talk,talk,talk,but you started to say it in September and you still have to reach it.
If you already were a 1800 player ,then 8 months is enough to recover to your "right" rating ,don't you think?
Now I start to think that I'll never see the day when you'll reach 1800 (or 1700 at least) as you bragged about back in the day.
P.S.:posting a game where you beat a 900 player doesn't help other people to think that you're a "1800 strength"
Game 1411046
If you ask a 1500 player if they consider themselves good at chess, most will laugh and say im ok.
26 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by powershakerOh,I forgot.
By the way, here is my latest triumph over a 1000 rated player. I hope you enjoy it. I'm quite proud of it: Game 2005437 Give it up for menace. He's a good player, and he has nothing to be ashamed of. He did his best. *giggle*
You should be ashamed of that game instead of bragging about it,you missed the obvious Nxe5 punishing the crappy 2...f6.
This is how to do it,maybe I can teach you something: Game 1989365
27 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by BedlamI agree with you, I guess we can call good someone who plays constantly around 2000 level ,speaking of correspondence chess.
He probably means 1800 USCF which is about 1700 elo. Still you would have expected him to do a little better.......could never quite picture a 1700 rated OTB player losing to someone under 1300 (at the time) here.
Game 1411046
If you ask a 1500 player if they consider themselves good at chess, most will laugh and say im ok.
1500,1600 and even 1700 is not "good",only mediocre players (yes,I'm mediocre also) who still hang pieces.
At 1800 you start to think about the game more in depth and definitely need further study (if you've spare time to do it) to reach 2000.
Basically I think (I may be wrong of course) that under 1800 we're all patzers,there are better patzers and worse patzers but still patzers!
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
27 Apr 06
Originally posted by RavelloI have an OTB rating over 1800, you wouldnt believe some of the stupid moves I make, yes I still sometimes hang pieces. I had my a**e totally handed to me by a 1400 player not long ago...ah well.
I agree with you, I guess we can call good someone who plays constantly around 2000 level ,speaking of corespondence chess.
1500,1600 and even 1700 is not "good",only mediocre players (yes,I'm mediocre also) who still hang pieces.
At 1800 you start to think about the game more in depth and definitely need further study (if you've spare time to do it) to re ...[text shortened]... under 1800 we're all patzers,there are better patzers and worse patzers but still patzers!
I think you're right in regard to 2000, it does seem like the magic marker. 2000 requires a stability in play which a lot of 1700-1800s just dont have.
27 Apr 06
Originally posted by powershakerYou don't know what zugzwang is.
Well, I'm about to hit over 1600 when jerbee times out. He's crying right now. And, it's zugzwang. He only has one move. Plus, I'm getting a red riding hood B.B. gun for Christmas! What are you getting? I bet mine's shinier than yours! *giggle*
Bucky
Little game I am playing with jerbee: Game 1776520