27 Apr 06
1 edit
For powershaker.....
zug·zwang (tsuk'tsväng'😉
n.
A situation in a chess game in which a player is forced to make an undesirable or disadvantageous move.
[German Zugzwang : Zug, pull, move (from Middle High German zuc, pull, from Old High German, from ziohan, to pull) + Zwang, compulsion (from Middle High German twanc, from Old High German).]
27 Apr 06
Relitive to everyone in the world who knows how to play chess id say anyone over 1400 could be considered good.
For example id say most people in the UK know how to play chess but rarely do so. Only a small minority play regularly, use sites like this, are members of a chess club, study chess in any way, have a rating or try to improve thier game.
27 Apr 06
Originally posted by BedlamI think I can. Of course I can't say the opposite.
My honest answer is I start to consider people good when I can chat chess with them without having to fill in the blanks. None of us can say that someone 300 points under us wouldnt be able to improve on moves we made in games.
27 Apr 06
Originally posted by BedlamPerhaps you should have put a 'some' in your sentence before moves then. I make mistakes. Everyone does. However, what makes a player better than another is that their mistakes are smaller and less common.
If a 1500 can solve a tactical problem from a GM game im sure they could patch up moves from yours.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
27 Apr 06
Originally posted by XanthosNZSo you were just trying to be difficult and miss the point?
Perhaps you should have put a 'some' in your sentence before moves then. I make mistakes. Everyone does. However, what makes a player better than another is that their mistakes are smaller and less common.
27 Apr 06
Originally posted by powershakerIt's not the size of your rating that's important it's what you do with it.
When is a player considered good? I'm not saying in the chess world. I'm saying in the entire world. If one considers the game, what rating begins to be considered "good" by the average layman who ponders the ratings and the percentages? Just wanted to know people's opinion.
Keep telling yourself that anyway.
27 Apr 06
Originally posted by General PutzerI think this is crap. Most 1800 players I know are quite tactical and can pose a threat to anyone the only problem is that they are not good technicians and tend to lose endgames, against stronger opponents, that they should win.
In the USCF, an "A" player (1800+) is considered a GOOD player. They have studied the game enough to win a "won" game, and generally don't make any stupid blunders. "A" players are good solid technicians, they won't win any brilliancy prizes, but they're not schmucks.
Around newbie players, an "A" player could get away with claiming to be a maste ...[text shortened]... d be the wiser.
I believe 1800+ in the USCF is around the top 95% of all players.
27 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by wormwoodI recall you saying you moved to Hawaii, no library excuses 4 months after that you would be at 1700 you said. I said 2 months was good enough but fine i'll got 4 months. When was that? 2 months ago?
I'm just about to reach 1700, where are you 'shaker? 🙂
I also recall wormwood saying he would have a race at that time with you and he's pretty close to 1700. You got 2 months left. No excuses.
How was the Hawaii tourney?