|
|
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On April 28 2014 00:55 Yorbon wrote:Hi all, I've been playing chess more often in the last few weeks, playing some against computer opponents and trying to increase my understanding of the game. I thought the 'academic' section of chessmaster grandmaster edition with very useful and I'm also watching a series of youtube video's with some elaborate analysis on games (example: + Show Spoiler +). Do you guys have any recommendations on these analyses video's or more general, on improving in general? I'm quite a low level player. I played chess pretty high for my age between my 7th and 11th year before quitting the chess club i was a part of, but i haven't played chess a lot since then (im 24 now). I did study my old chess book and went through them without any trouble. I think the level of the video i gave as an example is about what i'd need (not too hard to follow, but i'm learning..). Although i know it probably doesnt say much, but as an indication my ranking on the chessmaster program against computer opponents averages around 1260. Thanks for any time spent 
Tactics tactics tactics
http://www.chesstempo.com
Sign up (it's free) and it'll give you tactics problems appropriate to your ability
|
@urboss: Thanks for the links! I'll be sure to look into them
On April 28 2014 01:28 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2014 00:55 Yorbon wrote:Hi all, I've been playing chess more often in the last few weeks, playing some against computer opponents and trying to increase my understanding of the game. I thought the 'academic' section of chessmaster grandmaster edition with very useful and I'm also watching a series of youtube video's with some elaborate analysis on games (example: + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLW_qst9veM ). Do you guys have any recommendations on these analyses video's or more general, on improving in general? I'm quite a low level player. I played chess pretty high for my age between my 7th and 11th year before quitting the chess club i was a part of, but i haven't played chess a lot since then (im 24 now). I did study my old chess book and went through them without any trouble. I think the level of the video i gave as an example is about what i'd need (not too hard to follow, but i'm learning..). Although i know it probably doesnt say much, but as an indication my ranking on the chessmaster program against computer opponents averages around 1260. Thanks for any time spent Tactics tactics tactics http://www.chesstempo.comSign up (it's free) and it'll give you tactics problems appropriate to your ability Very fun site. I noticed I played standard very slowly and made some stupid mistakes, i even dropped to around 1200 to return to 1500 in 50ish problems. ):
But it was fun nonetheless. I havent played the sections blitz, theory and practice yet, though.
|
your Country52797 Posts
I was at a math competition a few days ago and we were playing chess before it started. I am very bad at chess, as in probably in the 700s in ELO (not actually sure though), except in the endgame, and I was playing a fairly decent player (1350 ELO). I was hanging on much better than I should have and after a long and aggressive game we arrived at this end position.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1ck30YG.png)
I was white, and it was my turn.
+ Show Spoiler +1. Rd6! a5?? 2. Qf6 Ne5 ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4swOeMa.png) 3. Rd8# Sort of glad I saw that and didn't panic about getting my last two good pieces forked.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On April 28 2014 03:51 Yorbon wrote:@urboss: Thanks for the links! I'll be sure to look into them Show nested quote +On April 28 2014 01:28 marvellosity wrote:On April 28 2014 00:55 Yorbon wrote:Hi all, I've been playing chess more often in the last few weeks, playing some against computer opponents and trying to increase my understanding of the game. I thought the 'academic' section of chessmaster grandmaster edition with very useful and I'm also watching a series of youtube video's with some elaborate analysis on games (example: + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLW_qst9veM ). Do you guys have any recommendations on these analyses video's or more general, on improving in general? I'm quite a low level player. I played chess pretty high for my age between my 7th and 11th year before quitting the chess club i was a part of, but i haven't played chess a lot since then (im 24 now). I did study my old chess book and went through them without any trouble. I think the level of the video i gave as an example is about what i'd need (not too hard to follow, but i'm learning..). Although i know it probably doesnt say much, but as an indication my ranking on the chessmaster program against computer opponents averages around 1260. Thanks for any time spent Tactics tactics tactics http://www.chesstempo.comSign up (it's free) and it'll give you tactics problems appropriate to your ability Very fun site. I noticed I played standard very slowly and made some stupid mistakes, i even dropped to around 1200 to return to 1500 in 50ish problems. ): But it was fun nonetheless. I havent played the sections blitz, theory and practice yet, though.
Honestly until you get to about 1800 standard on that site, you will improve fastest by simply doing tactics until you get to about that level. I understand that that might get a bit dull and obviously do whatever you enjoy, but purely for improvement purposes, getting your tactics level up is the best way to go.
|
On April 28 2014 05:36 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2014 03:51 Yorbon wrote:@urboss: Thanks for the links! I'll be sure to look into them On April 28 2014 01:28 marvellosity wrote:On April 28 2014 00:55 Yorbon wrote:Hi all, I've been playing chess more often in the last few weeks, playing some against computer opponents and trying to increase my understanding of the game. I thought the 'academic' section of chessmaster grandmaster edition with very useful and I'm also watching a series of youtube video's with some elaborate analysis on games (example: + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLW_qst9veM ). Do you guys have any recommendations on these analyses video's or more general, on improving in general? I'm quite a low level player. I played chess pretty high for my age between my 7th and 11th year before quitting the chess club i was a part of, but i haven't played chess a lot since then (im 24 now). I did study my old chess book and went through them without any trouble. I think the level of the video i gave as an example is about what i'd need (not too hard to follow, but i'm learning..). Although i know it probably doesnt say much, but as an indication my ranking on the chessmaster program against computer opponents averages around 1260. Thanks for any time spent Tactics tactics tactics http://www.chesstempo.comSign up (it's free) and it'll give you tactics problems appropriate to your ability Very fun site. I noticed I played standard very slowly and made some stupid mistakes, i even dropped to around 1200 to return to 1500 in 50ish problems. ): But it was fun nonetheless. I havent played the sections blitz, theory and practice yet, though. Honestly until you get to about 1800 standard on that site, you will improve fastest by simply doing tactics until you get to about that level. I understand that that might get a bit dull and obviously do whatever you enjoy, but purely for improvement purposes, getting your tactics level up is the best way to go. Yeah, well, I think I will keep doing other things as well, like watching the video's and just playing. But we'll see how things go.
|
On April 28 2014 05:36 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2014 03:51 Yorbon wrote:@urboss: Thanks for the links! I'll be sure to look into them On April 28 2014 01:28 marvellosity wrote:On April 28 2014 00:55 Yorbon wrote:Hi all, I've been playing chess more often in the last few weeks, playing some against computer opponents and trying to increase my understanding of the game. I thought the 'academic' section of chessmaster grandmaster edition with very useful and I'm also watching a series of youtube video's with some elaborate analysis on games (example: + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLW_qst9veM ). Do you guys have any recommendations on these analyses video's or more general, on improving in general? I'm quite a low level player. I played chess pretty high for my age between my 7th and 11th year before quitting the chess club i was a part of, but i haven't played chess a lot since then (im 24 now). I did study my old chess book and went through them without any trouble. I think the level of the video i gave as an example is about what i'd need (not too hard to follow, but i'm learning..). Although i know it probably doesnt say much, but as an indication my ranking on the chessmaster program against computer opponents averages around 1260. Thanks for any time spent Tactics tactics tactics http://www.chesstempo.comSign up (it's free) and it'll give you tactics problems appropriate to your ability Very fun site. I noticed I played standard very slowly and made some stupid mistakes, i even dropped to around 1200 to return to 1500 in 50ish problems. ): But it was fun nonetheless. I havent played the sections blitz, theory and practice yet, though. Honestly until you get to about 1800 standard on that site, you will improve fastest by simply doing tactics until you get to about that level. I understand that that might get a bit dull and obviously do whatever you enjoy, but purely for improvement purposes, getting your tactics level up is the best way to go.
It's true that tactics are important, but solving puzzles isn't the only way to learn them. I think tactics puzzles are sometimes emphasized too much to the exclusion of all else. People were able to develop strong tactics before there were online puzzle sites... playing slowly and analyzing games (with stronger player preferably) will strengthen tactics in real positions that actually arise in your games. The added benefit is you're learning strategy and how games progress as well, instead of only tactical positions in isolation. As analogy I think of tactics puzzles like bicep curls, whereas game analysis is like pullups that hit many muscle groups. Tactics puzzles may lead to beating bad players, but game analysis will yield more real improvement per time put in I think.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On April 28 2014 06:58 Mothra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2014 05:36 marvellosity wrote:On April 28 2014 03:51 Yorbon wrote:@urboss: Thanks for the links! I'll be sure to look into them On April 28 2014 01:28 marvellosity wrote:On April 28 2014 00:55 Yorbon wrote:Hi all, I've been playing chess more often in the last few weeks, playing some against computer opponents and trying to increase my understanding of the game. I thought the 'academic' section of chessmaster grandmaster edition with very useful and I'm also watching a series of youtube video's with some elaborate analysis on games (example: + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLW_qst9veM ). Do you guys have any recommendations on these analyses video's or more general, on improving in general? I'm quite a low level player. I played chess pretty high for my age between my 7th and 11th year before quitting the chess club i was a part of, but i haven't played chess a lot since then (im 24 now). I did study my old chess book and went through them without any trouble. I think the level of the video i gave as an example is about what i'd need (not too hard to follow, but i'm learning..). Although i know it probably doesnt say much, but as an indication my ranking on the chessmaster program against computer opponents averages around 1260. Thanks for any time spent Tactics tactics tactics http://www.chesstempo.comSign up (it's free) and it'll give you tactics problems appropriate to your ability Very fun site. I noticed I played standard very slowly and made some stupid mistakes, i even dropped to around 1200 to return to 1500 in 50ish problems. ): But it was fun nonetheless. I havent played the sections blitz, theory and practice yet, though. Honestly until you get to about 1800 standard on that site, you will improve fastest by simply doing tactics until you get to about that level. I understand that that might get a bit dull and obviously do whatever you enjoy, but purely for improvement purposes, getting your tactics level up is the best way to go. It's true that tactics are important, but solving puzzles isn't the only way to learn them. I think tactics puzzles are sometimes emphasized too much to the exclusion of all else. People were able to develop strong tactics before there were online puzzle sites... playing slowly and analyzing games (with stronger player preferably) will strengthen tactics in real positions that actually arise in your games. The added benefit is you're learning strategy and how games progress as well, instead of only tactical positions in isolation. As analogy I think of tactics puzzles like bicep curls, whereas game analysis is like pullups that hit many muscle groups. Tactics puzzles may lead to beating bad players, but game analysis will yield more real improvement per time put in I think.
Yes, people used books before instead of sites 
And I disagree, until you're a certain level of tactical proficiency, it's simply the best way to improve. Because maybe you will have better strategic/positional/endgame play to some extent by doing other things, but actually games will be won or lost based on tactical mistakes/opportunities missed/taken. There's someone in the blog section who was publishing detailed analyses of their games, but basically multiple times per game, both sides were missing tactical blows that totally change the evaluation of the position and basically make the rest of the "strategic" analysis totally irrelevant.
But yes, of course playing games is also a pretty good way to improve :D
Incidentally, all positions on chesstempo.com are taken from actual games.
I play at around 2100 level, and still most games are decided by tactical mistakes/opportunities. From my last otb game:
![[image loading]](http://www.chessvideos.tv/bimg/32jklrdowhes0.png)
I'd just played 1...g5 and my opponent played the terrible 2.Qf6?? allowing 2...Qf3! practically winning on the spot (the game finished 3.Qd4 Re2+ 4.Rxe2 Qxe2+ 5.Kg1 Ne3 6.Rd2 Qe1+ 7.Kh2 Nf1+ (7...Re8!) 8.Kg2 Nxd2 0-1).
|
If I may comment on that discussion (although i'm too bad to actually know), I see (short-term) tactics as the (starcraft) mechanics of chess. The higher level you play, the more profiency in that area is required to stand your ground at that level. Strategic possibilities, or depth, increase with tactical capabilities, like tactics and builds in starcraft becomes possible with better mechanics. In this sense, focussing on it is indeed the 'best' way to improve, as it provides a basis for future improvement in other directions. However, i do think that playing real games in addition to practicing tactics is quite valuable. When I practice tactics, i know there's something there, creating a bias in patterns i look for; sacrificial attacks in tactics i find pretty easy during tactic training, while during a game, i don't even consider such things, for example. Knowing something's there is half the solution, in my experience.
So i don't disagree with both of you, even though you try your best to exclude one another  . In terms of training regime, I think a focus on tactical improvement is justified, but doing so by practicing both isolated scenarios ánd 'real' games.
edit: Btw, marvellosity, are you the commenter with the same name on this problem? I was like 'hey, this name sounds familiar'
|
I fully agree about the tactics being the most important thing.
However, even at 1200 Elo it helps a lot to have a basic understanding of openings and simple strategic concepts.
If you fail to get your pieces out in the opening or fall for the same opening trap every time without knowing it, you may still win with good tactics, but it gets a lot harder and you will just feel depressed after some time.
Also, in end games there is a lot of basic stuff that you can learn that allows you to play more on intuition rather than sheer calculation.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
yes, play of course. I kinda view playing as a thing on its own. It's the lengthy analysis after (beyond looking for what tactical moves you miss) that imo is of somewhat questionable value until a certain point.
I love endgames.
![[image loading]](http://www.chessvideos.tv/bimg/h02u3v20hei6.png)
1.a7 looks like the classic winning ending, with 2.Rh1(c1), 3.Rh8, 4.Rb8 etc.
But actually 1.Ka7! Rb2 2.Re3! Rb1 3.Ka8 Rb2 4.a7 wins faster and easier. Kinda cool huh? :>
|
Does anyone have a good free app for puzzles on Android? I used the iChess Free app for a while, which has 1000 puzzles spread over three difficulties (the beginner level being for real beginners, however), and any suggestion for a free app with many puzzles is more than welcome :-)
|
On April 28 2014 21:51 marvellosity wrote:yes, play of course. I kinda view playing as a thing on its own. It's the lengthy analysis after (beyond looking for what tactical moves you miss) that imo is of somewhat questionable value until a certain point. I love endgames. 1.a7 looks like the classic winning ending, with 2.Rh1(c1), 3.Rh8, 4.Rb8 etc. But actually 1.Ka7! Rb2 2.Re3! Rb1 3.Ka8 Rb2 4.a7 wins faster and easier. Kinda cool huh? :> I tried both, but i couldn't win the harder one. The QvR endgame is not really playable for me atm. There's supposed to be a way to do it, but i couldn't figure it out on my own. Or did I miss something and is there a way to get the 1.a7 scenario into a K+QvK ending? (if so, i couldnt find it, due to some skewer not being there as opposed to the easier scenario)
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On April 29 2014 00:29 Yorbon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2014 21:51 marvellosity wrote:yes, play of course. I kinda view playing as a thing on its own. It's the lengthy analysis after (beyond looking for what tactical moves you miss) that imo is of somewhat questionable value until a certain point. I love endgames. 1.a7 looks like the classic winning ending, with 2.Rh1(c1), 3.Rh8, 4.Rb8 etc. But actually 1.Ka7! Rb2 2.Re3! Rb1 3.Ka8 Rb2 4.a7 wins faster and easier. Kinda cool huh? :> I tried both, but i couldn't win the harder one. The QvR endgame is not really playable for me atm. There's supposed to be a way to do it, but i couldn't figure it out on my own. Or did I miss something and is there a way to get the 1.a7 scenario into a K+QvK ending? (if so, i couldnt find it, due to some skewer not being there as opposed to the easier scenario)
The point is that in both scenarios, by force a QvsR endgame is reached. The difference is in the first scenario, White cannot win the rook by force, but in the 2nd scenario, White can. The idea of the mysterious maneouvre is that the 3rd rank is the only rank the black rook can be on to not be lost by force after White promotes. So White takes the care to occupy the 3rd rank himself first.
I'd dare say a large majority of players would struggle mightily vs a tablebase in a normal QvsR endgame.
edit: so basically yes, you're right. ^^
|
On April 28 2014 19:57 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2014 06:58 Mothra wrote:On April 28 2014 05:36 marvellosity wrote:On April 28 2014 03:51 Yorbon wrote:@urboss: Thanks for the links! I'll be sure to look into them On April 28 2014 01:28 marvellosity wrote:On April 28 2014 00:55 Yorbon wrote:Hi all, I've been playing chess more often in the last few weeks, playing some against computer opponents and trying to increase my understanding of the game. I thought the 'academic' section of chessmaster grandmaster edition with very useful and I'm also watching a series of youtube video's with some elaborate analysis on games (example: + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLW_qst9veM ). Do you guys have any recommendations on these analyses video's or more general, on improving in general? I'm quite a low level player. I played chess pretty high for my age between my 7th and 11th year before quitting the chess club i was a part of, but i haven't played chess a lot since then (im 24 now). I did study my old chess book and went through them without any trouble. I think the level of the video i gave as an example is about what i'd need (not too hard to follow, but i'm learning..). Although i know it probably doesnt say much, but as an indication my ranking on the chessmaster program against computer opponents averages around 1260. Thanks for any time spent Tactics tactics tactics http://www.chesstempo.comSign up (it's free) and it'll give you tactics problems appropriate to your ability Very fun site. I noticed I played standard very slowly and made some stupid mistakes, i even dropped to around 1200 to return to 1500 in 50ish problems. ): But it was fun nonetheless. I havent played the sections blitz, theory and practice yet, though. Honestly until you get to about 1800 standard on that site, you will improve fastest by simply doing tactics until you get to about that level. I understand that that might get a bit dull and obviously do whatever you enjoy, but purely for improvement purposes, getting your tactics level up is the best way to go. It's true that tactics are important, but solving puzzles isn't the only way to learn them. I think tactics puzzles are sometimes emphasized too much to the exclusion of all else. People were able to develop strong tactics before there were online puzzle sites... playing slowly and analyzing games (with stronger player preferably) will strengthen tactics in real positions that actually arise in your games. The added benefit is you're learning strategy and how games progress as well, instead of only tactical positions in isolation. As analogy I think of tactics puzzles like bicep curls, whereas game analysis is like pullups that hit many muscle groups. Tactics puzzles may lead to beating bad players, but game analysis will yield more real improvement per time put in I think. Yes, people used books before instead of sites And I disagree, until you're a certain level of tactical proficiency, it's simply the best way to improve. Because maybe you will have better strategic/positional/endgame play to some extent by doing other things, but actually games will be won or lost based on tactical mistakes/opportunities missed/taken. There's someone in the blog section who was publishing detailed analyses of their games, but basically multiple times per game, both sides were missing tactical blows that totally change the evaluation of the position and basically make the rest of the "strategic" analysis totally irrelevant. But yes, of course playing games is also a pretty good way to improve :D Incidentally, all positions on chesstempo.com are taken from actual games. I play at around 2100 level, and still most games are decided by tactical mistakes/opportunities. From my last otb game: I'd just played 1...g5 and my opponent played the terrible 2.Qf6?? allowing 2...Qf3! practically winning on the spot (the game finished 3.Qd4 Re2+ 4.Rxe2 Qxe2+ 5.Kg1 Ne3 6.Rd2 Qe1+ 7.Kh2 Nf1+ (7...Re8!) 8.Kg2 Nxd2 0-1).
You're a much stronger player than me so I should defer to your judgement on improvement. I agree that tactics should take precedence, but I just wanted to put out there that there are other ways to train tactics besides puzzles, such as reviewing master games (solitaire chess), and stoyko exercises.
|
On April 29 2014 02:18 Mothra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2014 19:57 marvellosity wrote:On April 28 2014 06:58 Mothra wrote:On April 28 2014 05:36 marvellosity wrote:On April 28 2014 03:51 Yorbon wrote:@urboss: Thanks for the links! I'll be sure to look into them On April 28 2014 01:28 marvellosity wrote:On April 28 2014 00:55 Yorbon wrote:Hi all, I've been playing chess more often in the last few weeks, playing some against computer opponents and trying to increase my understanding of the game. I thought the 'academic' section of chessmaster grandmaster edition with very useful and I'm also watching a series of youtube video's with some elaborate analysis on games (example: + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLW_qst9veM ). Do you guys have any recommendations on these analyses video's or more general, on improving in general? I'm quite a low level player. I played chess pretty high for my age between my 7th and 11th year before quitting the chess club i was a part of, but i haven't played chess a lot since then (im 24 now). I did study my old chess book and went through them without any trouble. I think the level of the video i gave as an example is about what i'd need (not too hard to follow, but i'm learning..). Although i know it probably doesnt say much, but as an indication my ranking on the chessmaster program against computer opponents averages around 1260. Thanks for any time spent Tactics tactics tactics http://www.chesstempo.comSign up (it's free) and it'll give you tactics problems appropriate to your ability Very fun site. I noticed I played standard very slowly and made some stupid mistakes, i even dropped to around 1200 to return to 1500 in 50ish problems. ): But it was fun nonetheless. I havent played the sections blitz, theory and practice yet, though. Honestly until you get to about 1800 standard on that site, you will improve fastest by simply doing tactics until you get to about that level. I understand that that might get a bit dull and obviously do whatever you enjoy, but purely for improvement purposes, getting your tactics level up is the best way to go. It's true that tactics are important, but solving puzzles isn't the only way to learn them. I think tactics puzzles are sometimes emphasized too much to the exclusion of all else. People were able to develop strong tactics before there were online puzzle sites... playing slowly and analyzing games (with stronger player preferably) will strengthen tactics in real positions that actually arise in your games. The added benefit is you're learning strategy and how games progress as well, instead of only tactical positions in isolation. As analogy I think of tactics puzzles like bicep curls, whereas game analysis is like pullups that hit many muscle groups. Tactics puzzles may lead to beating bad players, but game analysis will yield more real improvement per time put in I think. Yes, people used books before instead of sites And I disagree, until you're a certain level of tactical proficiency, it's simply the best way to improve. Because maybe you will have better strategic/positional/endgame play to some extent by doing other things, but actually games will be won or lost based on tactical mistakes/opportunities missed/taken. There's someone in the blog section who was publishing detailed analyses of their games, but basically multiple times per game, both sides were missing tactical blows that totally change the evaluation of the position and basically make the rest of the "strategic" analysis totally irrelevant. But yes, of course playing games is also a pretty good way to improve :D Incidentally, all positions on chesstempo.com are taken from actual games. I play at around 2100 level, and still most games are decided by tactical mistakes/opportunities. From my last otb game: I'd just played 1...g5 and my opponent played the terrible 2.Qf6?? allowing 2...Qf3! practically winning on the spot (the game finished 3.Qd4 Re2+ 4.Rxe2 Qxe2+ 5.Kg1 Ne3 6.Rd2 Qe1+ 7.Kh2 Nf1+ (7...Re8!) 8.Kg2 Nxd2 0-1). You're a much stronger player than me so I should defer to your judgement on improvement. I agree that tactics should take precedence, but I just wanted to put out there that there are other ways to train tactics besides puzzles, such as reviewing master games (solitaire chess), and stoyko exercises. I'm ~2100 and am playing pretty seriously right now. I like to do an hour of blitz, an hour of tactics puzzles, and some miscellaneous opening + endgame work daily.
|
When you guys mention a rating, which one do you mean? I saw on wikipedia the elo rating and the USCF rating.
And where do you get them? From sites like chess.com or other related sites? Or are you participating in (real life) tourneys and get a rating from there?
Like I previously said, i estimated my rating through computer opponents, but i'm trying to get a somewhat more reliable estimation of my rating in a certain system. So if you say you're rated ~xx00, on what basis is that? Would you say that rating is comparable to other ratings, if one would make a connection?
|
On April 30 2014 00:14 Yorbon wrote:
When you guys mention a rating, which one do you mean? I saw on wikipedia the elo rating and the USCF rating.
And where do you get them? From sites like chess.com or other related sites? Or are you participating in (real life) tourneys and get a rating from there?
Like I previously said, i estimated my rating through computer opponents, but i'm trying to get a somewhat more reliable estimation of my rating in a certain system. So if you say you're rated ~xx00, on what basis is that? Would you say that rating is comparable to other ratings, if one would make a connection?
Yeah I'm a little confused by the ratings as well. I'm sure they aren't all comparable because I believe Jerry (ChessNetwork) is something like 2800 on whatever website he uses, but that is near the top GM levels and I'm sure he can't compete there..
|
On April 30 2014 00:20 Chewbacca. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2014 00:14 Yorbon wrote:
When you guys mention a rating, which one do you mean? I saw on wikipedia the elo rating and the USCF rating.
And where do you get them? From sites like chess.com or other related sites? Or are you participating in (real life) tourneys and get a rating from there?
Like I previously said, i estimated my rating through computer opponents, but i'm trying to get a somewhat more reliable estimation of my rating in a certain system. So if you say you're rated ~xx00, on what basis is that? Would you say that rating is comparable to other ratings, if one would make a connection? Yeah I'm a little confused by the ratings as well. I'm sure they aren't all comparable because I believe Jerry (ChessNetwork) is something like 2800 on whatever website he uses, but that is near the top GM levels and I'm sure he can't compete there..
He uses Chess.com, although he may use others as well.
|
Radjabov might get into time trouble against Carlsen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
786
331
214
82
73
EPT
