|
|
|
Topic: My First Win Against Class A Player Ever!
| |
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
I didn't do it every move just several times as the game progessed -- the game lasted over 70 moves. :)
Yup and that's about the state of my chess right now, just basically eyeballing everything without effort towards precise calculation. I should of broke with the c-pawn... 
|
|
|
That doesn't sound so bad and really, the draw system here is not too intrusive and a draw offer can even be easily missed (as opposed to a pop up message).
My opinion is that if you are using the draw offer to annoy the other player, it is unreasonable and although I mostly agree with whyBish, too many reasonable requests become unreasonable. I wonder why the 12.6 phrasing was changed.
I also wonder about what richerby said about the ratings comparison (here vs. FIDE). He's probably right but I have a feeling that many FIDE ratings are not very accurate because a player may not yet have achieved his true rating as he doesn't play enough OTB. That makes it very difficult to make an good comparison.
I think an expert level player can most certainly blunder much more easily and often on Queen Alice than he might during an OTB tournament. Especially so if he's playing many games and of course playing only for enjoyment.
|
|
|
Ya he does have I think like 100 games in progress and he did mention that he doesn't mind blundering against beginners and that he wins more games by refusing draw requests. In this case however, he should of taken the draw... 
|
|
|
Blutigeroo wrote:
| I also wonder about what richerby said about the ratings comparison (here vs. FIDE). He's probably right but I have a feeling that many FIDE ratings are not very accurate because a player may not yet have achieved his true rating as he doesn't play enough OTB. That makes it very difficult to make an good comparison. |
For FIDE ratings, maybe. But FIDE only rate very strong players anyway*. For national ratings (e.g., USCF ratings), there are a lot of very active players and, except for provisional ratings and young players, who often improve very rapidly, you can usually assume that the ratings are a reasonably good measure.
* A few years ago, there was talk of them rating everyone down to a relatively low level but I'm not sure if anything came of it.
But this isn't the issue with comparing, say, Queen Alice ratings with USCF ratings. Ratings are only valid within the pool of players for which they were calculated: they measure your strength relative to the other players in the system. If two pools of players have a big overlap, you can try to work out a formula for converting one set of ratings to another but they can't be directly compared.
A simple way to see this is to remember that the change in your rating depends only on the result of the game and difference between your and your opponent's rating. That means that, for example, if we added 1000 to everybody's rating, nothing would really change because the differences between people's ratings would stay the same. The only difference would be that the numbers would be 1000 bigger. That tells you straight away that you can't compare directly because you don't know the 'base points' of the systems.
|
|
|
A while back someone did a very adhoc comparison (about 7 datapoints) and came to a figure that QA ratings are about 200 higher than FIDE. I get the feeling that even if this was correct that the gap is growing due to the provisional rules and 1 point min. I have never played in a FIDE tournament so I have no idea.
|
| Previous 1 2 3 4 Next |
|
|
|
