Originally posted by wormwoodWell, at least OTB, you are competing with serious chess players who make an effort to play well so it's not exactly a million dung-flies. However, I understand what you mean I just think such standards are not reasonable. If being better than 75% isn't good, I wonder what it would take to be great.
no it doesn't. 🙂
that's being better, but not necessarily 'good'. being good means you know your stuff. you either know it, or you don't. the number of people who are 'clueless' is irrelevant.
a million dung-flies can be wrong. quantity isn't quality. 🙂
Originally posted by exigentskywell, only the greats are great, and there has only been a handfull of them. 🙂 kasparov, karpov, fischer, capablanca, lasker etc...
Well, at least OTB, you are competing with serious chess players who make an effort to play well so it's not exactly a million dung-flies. However, I understand what you mean I just think such standards are not reasonable. If being better than 75% isn't good, I wonder what it would take to be great.
Originally posted by wormwoodI would call them masters lol.
well, only the greats are great, and there has only been a handfull of them. 🙂 kasparov, karpov, fischer, capablanca, lasker etc...
I would consider 1750 and up good. I'm 1600 on this site so far but I basically beat every human I play, that's at least above average. I thought good was above average (at least that's how I see it), with average players are rated 1150-1450 (again, that's how I see it).
"Average human" isn't the same as "Average chess player". I think the average club player is around 1600 while the average human is probably 500. Plus ratings on this site are inflated in comparison to OTB ratings.
Personally I consider 1800 to be "solid", Experts to be "good" and masters to be "better then good". Since I've been playing casually for a year and a half and seriously for 6 months I think I could be an Expert within a year (I'm currently rate 1650, but I've been improving quickly...)
Originally posted by moteutschIf you think you can get to Expert so quickly, you understand just how much skill and work is involved. The difference between 1600 and Expert is night and day. Moreover, the higher up you go in chess the harder it is to improve (almost exponentially).
"Average human" isn't the same as "Average chess player". I think the average club player is around 1600 while the average human is probably 500. Plus ratings on this site are inflated in comparison to OTB ratings.
Personally I consider 1800 to be "solid", Experts to be "good" and masters to be "better then good". Since I've been playing casually for a ...[text shortened]... Expert within a year (I'm currently rate 1650, but I've been improving quickly...)
Some related points:
First, most players have a sense of what it's like to play at a level above their own, even though they can't duplicate it themselves. Based on my experience climbing up through the ranks, I think the glimpse extends upward by roughly 600 points. In other words, the first understanding of what it's like to play as a master (2200+) appears at around 1600 strength.
Second, in OTB games, the weaker player will often start to think heavily after their position has already deteriorated. One aspect of chess strength is the ability to sense danger and avoid moves likely to lead to it. This is true at all levels.
Third, I think it's possible to grade mistakes by the strength of players most likely to make them (very roughly, of course). So 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d3? might be a 1400-1600 level mistake, and 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Be3? might be a 1850-2050 level mistake. This kind of grading is most obvious for players well above the strength level. One of the keys to getting stronger is eliminating from your play the lowest level of mistakes. Easy to say, of course - but it might be useful for folks to think about improvement in this way.
Originally posted by moteutschThis statement is at least as subjective as the original question. For some, RHP ratings are lower than OTB, for some they are higher, and for others, they are about right. The conversation has been had many times, there is no meaningful correlation to RHP ratings and OTB ratings. The same is true for any online chess site.
Plus ratings on this site are inflated in comparison to OTB ratings.
Originally posted by moteutschthat looks a little optimistic. I just felt the need to say this for you to not become frustrated later.
"Average human" isn't the same as "Average chess player". I think the average club player is around 1600 while the average human is probably 500. Plus ratings on this site are inflated in comparison to OTB ratings.
Personally I consider 1800 to be "solid", Experts to be "good" and masters to be "better then good". Since I've been playing casually for a ...[text shortened]... Expert within a year (I'm currently rate 1650, but I've been improving quickly...)
Originally posted by DawgHausI feel kind of bad for asking this, but I don't see why 5.Be3 is a mistake. I mean, it may not be the best move, but is it really a blunder?
So 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d3? might be a 1400-1600 level mistake, and 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Be3? might be a 1850-2050 level mistake. This kind of grading is most obvious for players well above the strength level. One of the keys to getting stronger is eliminating from your play the lowest level of mistakes. Easy to say, of course - but it might be useful for folks to think about improvement in this way.
Originally posted by diskamylIts useless overprotection of the d4 square and its a passive placement for the bishop... It doesn't do anything to help the position. All in all its a simple waste of a move. Bd2 is good as after cxd4 cxd4 it has open lines and prevents any Bb4+ business.
ok, why?
Originally posted by tomtom232"Its useless overprotection of the d4 square and its a passive placement for the bishop... It doesn't do anything to help the position."
Its useless overprotection of the d4 square and its a passive placement for the bishop... It doesn't do anything to help the position. All in all its a simple waste of a move. Bd2 is good as after cxd4 cxd4 it has open lines and prevents any Bb4+ business.
well I think that's wrong. it's not useless, not all defensive squares for the bishop is passive, and it does help to the position, actually right at the point where the battle is going on.
and Bd2 is losing a pawn.
I'm still not convinced it's a mistake. and in the ...Qb6 line, Qd2 instead of b3? holds everything just fine.
OK I made some database search, and I think the actual idea behind Be3 is to take on c5 without loss of tempo, as after black bishop takes back, white simply swaps the bishops off and goes for a kingside initiative which forces black to postpone his queenside developement.