28 Nov 12
Originally posted by RJHindsIf you got your head out your asss you might see he was talking about differences in perception or levels of calculation, not some blithe comment about 200 points higher.
If you have a clear understanding of the rating formula, which I don't, those numbers are supposed to give the percentage likelihood of win and loss record one player would have in comparison to another.
28 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by greenpawn34I know this to be true in the US, where ratings can definitely vary by geography.
Often there will be no difference in playing strentgh between an 1800 and 2000 player.
It may simply come down to where you live.
Your OTB grade is based soley on the grade of the player you meet and if
you just play Div II league chess and the occasional lower class tournament then
your grade may not reflect your true capability.
Not that any numb ...[text shortened]... can infact truly show how good a player is.
It's just a guidline, an indication and nothing more.
I lived in Virginia in the 1990's, and for 5 years I played on a team that went to the US Amateur Team Championship East tournament each year.
Each year every person on my team would collect a large number of rating points, simply because we would play teams from New York and New Jersey, and their ratings were inflated compared to ours-- or our ratings were deflated compared to theirs, depending on the perspective.
We used to joke half tongue-in-cheek that a 2000 player in New York was a 1700 player in Virginia.
- Joined
- 09 Aug 01
- Moves
- 54191
28 Nov 12
Originally posted by nimzo5Playing a conservative opening, playing safe, and waiting for your opponent to blunder is one way to reach 2000-to-2100.
Most people get to 1800 by not overlooking basic 3 move tactics.
A 2000 is pretty much an 1800 but with either a thought out opening repertoire or a lot experience playing certain middle game schemes. You see a lot of young kids and old men who sit around 2000. For the kids, it' often temporary as they build up experience.
The problem is you can't progress to the next level with this approach.
28 Nov 12
Originally posted by RJHindsCool, I asked Rex about you, we'll see if he responds.
I finally remembered the guys name. It is Rex Blalock. I looked him up on the USCF website and I see he is living in Alabama now. It says he has a national master certificate but only a candidate master norm. His rating now is 2216.
28 Nov 12
Originally posted by ChessPraxisI played him at the service club on Ft Gordon and he also played at a recreation center in North Augusta, SC. I don't know if he will remember me because I was just another one of the soldiers he used too beat all the time, except for that one time.
Cool, I asked Rex about you, we'll see if he responds.
28 Nov 12
Originally posted by RJHindsRJ was this the start of you using Psychology to defeat your opponent ?
I remember playing against a guy at the unrated chess tournaments that the Army held as a recreational activity for soldiers while I was still in the Army. He told me he was a candidate master and only needed a few more points to get to the master level. His name started with a B and is almost on the tip of my tongue, but I just can't think of it right now ...[text shortened]... ke and I nursed it home for my only win against him and he was a good 600 USCF points above me.