09 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by RahimKThe point is that if you don't play - and your rating was rising before you stopped - then of course you can't claim your rating is "accurate".
And? Forget Rhp Chess. I haven't played an OTB since end of Feb.
That's what really matters.
09 Sep 06
Originally posted by RahimKIf your rating is still going up, and you play someone whose rating is higher than yours and feel you were at least as good...
???
I'm not sure ?
Well, that's perfectly natural.
If you don't keep playing here, you'll never know what your "true" RHP rating is. (And of course once you have "levelled off", you can still get better, or worse.)
09 Sep 06
Originally posted by dottewellThis wasn't really about my rating. I just thought subs had an advatage over rating then non-subs but apperently i'm the only one who thinks this.
If your rating is still going up, and you play someone whose rating is higher than yours and feel you were at least as good...
Well, that's perfectly natural.
If you don't keep playing here, you'll never know what your "true" RHP rating is. (And of course once you have "levelled off", you can still get better, or worse.)
But yes my rating probably influenced that opinion although i know my rating isn't stable yet.
09 Sep 06
The more games, the more "erosion" in my play.
I like RHP for the long term development, that means 6 games are for me enough; to think about solid opening, strategy, plans etc. I also get the impression that some opponents, who have more than 100 games active, don't have the time to look at each game thoroughly. You see it at the momentum of there moves
So I state: lesser games active, more quality in the game!
10 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by XanthosNZThis conclusion makes sense. I think Rahim's just looking for an ego boost. (I could be wrong, but what's the point of this thread if not?)
Could it be that stronger players tend to be players more commited to chess and more willing to spend money on a place to play chess?
10 Sep 06
Originally posted by XanthosNZNo way! I'm know my rating hasn't flatten out yet and i'm not trying to brag
Could it be that stronger players tend to be players more commited to chess and more willing to spend money on a place to play chess?
but subs more commited = higher rating?
Perhaps but when I beat players subs, I hear this over and over again.
You are no oridinary 1600 player or 1700. I take my chess seriously unlike a lot of you on here.
Not trying to brag or anything.
But okay i'm wrong and now this thread then end.