Originally posted by ErekoseIndeed it has been a fair mass resignation, but he would have had the potential for round two I think
Well, at least he has little effect on the outcome of the group by resigning now. It worse when someone wins a few games and then resigns all the rest. Not terribly fair to the folks he beat.
Originally posted by randolphYour post has definitely given me perspective! I had two lucky wins against rookgrabber (one was practically all book in a KID, and I think he resigned too early in the other), but reality is asserting itself and I am slowly getting ground down in several games. At least I know it's a tough group!
Nice groups to be in: 12, 18, 19, 36, 38, 51, 52, 56, 69, 71
Bad groups (2 or more over 2000): 6, 28, 30, 45, 59, 74, 85, 90
I'm a 200-ish point favorite in 44. Group 85 looks to be the absolute worst, with "GM" Norblackheart and another 2200+.
Paul
Originally posted by Paul LeggettWhoops- Rookgrabber and I met in the 1/14 clan league- the league season started at roughly the same time as the tournament, and I was inundated with games, and the start to run together!
Your post has definitely given me perspective! I had two lucky wins against rookgrabber (one was practically all book in a KID, and I think he resigned too early in the other), but reality is asserting itself and I am slowly getting ground down in several games. At least I know it's a tough group!
Paul
Originally posted by skeeterGreen Clubs has made an incredible improvement in a very short time. I beat him the first time I played him a few short months ago. He gave up a piece in the opening and then gave up the exhange (and thus I was a rook up), and then he let me mate him. I think his rating at that time was about 1500. He showed tactical promise but I was able to comfortably beat him.
Now, I've just had a look at this Green Clubs and some 3-4 weeks ago he was getting a hiding from his 1400-1500 contemporaries. Then, after a brain transplant from a GM he's now defeating 1800, a couple of 1900, and not to mention the 2000 win and a draw, rated players. WTF ?
How obvious does it need to be ? I'm going to do a Tom Hanks here ( Saving Priv ...[text shortened]... but I don't have your patience.
See you all around sometime ( I hope )
skeeter
And then I played him a month or so later, and he was freaking relentless, and I loss like 4 games in a row to him. I avoid playing him now.
Anyway, the experience got my interest so I looked at his playing history. Two months ago in early December, he lost like 11 of 12 games to players averaging 1600 rating and with a loss to a 1350 player (you can see the dip on his profile). Now, two months later he is 2200+. I guess it is possible? I am not accusing him of cheating. There is no telling what the reasons might be. Any comment is just conjecture without rigorous analysis? It is just fascinating. I would like to improve like that. I sent him a message asking about his improvement and he never replied.
Below is his first RHP game, which was just a few months ago. In this game, it looks like he knows how to move chess pieces, but that is about it. (Of course the interface will not let you make an illegal move.) Maybe he was messing around.
Game 7575368
The awesome 1 . . Na6 move followed by 2 . . Nb8! for the 2200+ player currently entered in the 2011 Championship. I wonder if his 5 . . f6 move was to block the scholar's mate? But he had already just played the incredible Nh3.
Game 7575368 as black.
Then there is this game of the 2200+ player as white.
Game 7575514
The awesome 1.Nh3 opening and the subsequent great tactical continuous moving of his Q.
Read from the start of the thread, moon1969. Then you'll realise Green Clubs has already been mentioned in dispatches. What seems obvious to you seems obvious to the rest of us too. Not much more we can do.
Is improvement from absolute patzer to 2200+ possible in a matter of weeks? To be quite frank, and scientifically accurate too, it isn't possible for 99% of the human race ever. And for the lucky 1%? Maybe possible over several years, but not via RHP