View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:50 am



Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Scalp! 
Author Message
King

Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:45 am
Posts: 805
Location: England
Rating: 1840
Rating Class: Class A (1800-2000)
Post Scalp!
Went down the chess club today - first time really since I've moved back home. Managed to get 1.5/2 against their strongest player (195 ECF, which is about 2210 ELO) in two 30 0 games.

Granted, neither game is particularly spectacular. I get the feeling I only managed to come out on top because he had no idea of my strength (perhaps thought I was a beginner) or because he was having an off day. I didn't feel like I was up against a 2200+ player, anyway.

The second game I probably could have pushed for an advantage but to be honest I didn't see a solid way to get through and I was scared of screwing up the endgame with the 3 on 2. I was happy to get a definite 1.5 rather than risk 1 all :)

The first game I really don't understand. Even I could see that the endgame after Qxe5 looks much better for white so I'm suprised he went for it. Perhaps he thought that I would pin the queen and go for that tactic which is probably better for white but maybe gives the chance for the stronger player to create an imbalance. That I turned this down and went for a small, stable advantage might have suprised him.

Anyway...a win is a win so I am happy :)


Last edited by FlintEastwood on Fri Jan 02, 2015 4:31 am, edited 1 time in total.



Mon Nov 11, 2013 5:12 pm
Profile
Site Moderator
Site Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 1:39 pm
Posts: 2856
Location: Maryland, USA
Rating: 1698
Rating Class: Class B (1600-1800)
Post Re: Scalp!
Congrats, Flint- I think you should be well pleased!

_________________
illigetimi non carborundum.


Mon Nov 11, 2013 5:38 pm
Profile WWW
King

Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:59 am
Posts: 1442
Rating: 2200
Rating Class: National Master
Post Re: Scalp!
Well done! Your opponent might be ecf 195 but that's the rating system for you. As soon as he played 12..Bxd3 in game one I knew he was in the 170-180 category at most, which is pretty strong anyway, so you have a right to be pleased with your results. ( no 195 would play Bxd3 even in a 1 minute game, unless it won material by some tactic )

Funny thing about ratings. My clubs b-team ( the teams now have names instead of numbers, but they know deep down who's boss :lol: ) They are all pretty similar rated but the third lowest out of five players, a 191 is board one. Players know even if the system doesn't who is strongest. Oh forgot, they managed to beat us in the league this year, but that's a 13 so does not count.

I thought you played really good in both games, both solid and active in style. You could have played on in the second game, but I understand why you did not.


Tue Nov 12, 2013 2:34 am
Profile ICQ
King

Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:45 am
Posts: 805
Location: England
Rating: 1840
Rating Class: Class A (1800-2000)
Post Re: Scalp!
Pobble wrote:
Well done! Your opponent might be ecf 195 but that's the rating system for you. As soon as he played 12..Bxd3 in game one I knew he was in the 170-180 category at most, which is pretty strong anyway, so you have a right to be pleased with your results. ( no 195 would play Bxd3 even in a 1 minute game, unless it won material by some tactic )

Funny thing about ratings. My clubs b-team ( the teams now have names instead of numbers, but they know deep down who's boss :lol: ) They are all pretty similar rated but the third lowest out of five players, a 191 is board one. Players know even if the system doesn't who is strongest. Oh forgot, they managed to beat us in the league this year, but that's a 13 so does not count.

I thought you played really good in both games, both solid and active in style. You could have played on in the second game, but I understand why you did not.


Thanks guys! Sorry for the brag but I was just quite happy with that result :)

Pobble, Bxd3 I can understand (and was certainly hoping for!) but I was suprised to see him play it. I thought Qb6 was much more active, given that I probably don't want to take on f6 until he committed to castling KS. It was this move that made me think that perhaps he thought he could get away with getting to an equal endgame and then just outplay the younger, less experienced player.

I am quite sure next time we play I won't have such an easy ride ;)


Tue Nov 12, 2013 4:03 am
Profile
Rook

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:45 pm
Posts: 101
Location: Fresno, California
Rating: 1967
Rating Class: Class A (1800-2000)
Post Re: Scalp!
I think it's fine for you to brag. Why not? On the other hand. I would have trouble believing this was a 2200. Usually for the same reasons Pobble said. But I guess anything is possible. I don't like to use rating conversions because they are too optimistic sometimes and misleading. If you want to know your rating in a pool you need to play in the pool. No conversions.. Maybe better to say 2100-2300. That way it gives a range that is believable. In this case I would give him 1900-2100:-P No master I know would assume you are a beginner. He might play sub-optimal moves because of your rating, but he wouldn't assume you were a beginner. And certainly not after you got to move 17, and did quite well. If he is really an NM level player he would be the first one I have seen that plays like this.

_________________
Proud supporter of Igor Smirnov's Remote Chess Academy. If you are interested in a good training program, here is the link:
http://chess-teacher.com/affiliates/idevaffiliate.php?id=1517_2_3_1


Tue Nov 12, 2013 4:22 am
Profile YIM WWW
King

Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:45 am
Posts: 805
Location: England
Rating: 1840
Rating Class: Class A (1800-2000)
Post Re: Scalp!
JumpNMustang wrote:
I think it's fine for you to brag. Why not? On the other hand. I would have trouble believing this was a 2200. Usually for the same reasons Pobble said. But I guess anything is possible. I don't like to use rating conversions because they are too optimistic sometimes and misleading. If you want to know your rating in a pool you need to play in the pool. No conversions.. Maybe better to say 2100-2300. That way it gives a range that is believable. In this case I would give him 1900-2100:-P No master I know would assume you are a beginner. He might play sub-optimal moves because of your rating, but he wouldn't assume you were a beginner. And certainly not after you got to move 17, and did quite well. If he is really an NM level player he would be the first one I have seen that plays like this.


I don't think that's particularly fair - I've seen GMs play worse than this before - just watch some of Greg's videos, for example! It's probably just a mixture of having an off day, and also not taking the game particularly seriously. While he might have had an unusually good run against some strong players an inflated rating compared to his extra strength, saying that a 195ECF player is really low level class A, based on two bad games, is a bit extreme! I'd say mid-level expert, at worst.

Anyway, I'm not saying this to big myself up at all! I'm under no illusions with these game that my victory was mostly due to him playing below standard than my brilliance :D But I think when somebody plays as many matches as he does his rating must be fairly accurate.


Tue Nov 12, 2013 10:19 am
Profile
King
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 12:19 pm
Posts: 1890
Location: Los Angeles
Rating Class: Expert (2000-2200)
Post Re: Scalp!
Seems like you played well in both games.

_________________
"Yes, I have played a blitz game once. It was on a train, in 1929." -Botvinnik


Tue Nov 12, 2013 10:32 am
Profile WWW
Rook

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:45 pm
Posts: 101
Location: Fresno, California
Rating: 1967
Rating Class: Class A (1800-2000)
Post Re: Scalp!
FlintEastwood wrote:
JumpNMustang wrote:
I think it's fine for you to brag. Why not? On the other hand. I would have trouble believing this was a 2200. Usually for the same reasons Pobble said. But I guess anything is possible. I don't like to use rating conversions because they are too optimistic sometimes and misleading. If you want to know your rating in a pool you need to play in the pool. No conversions.. Maybe better to say 2100-2300. That way it gives a range that is believable. In this case I would give him 1900-2100:-P No master I know would assume you are a beginner. He might play sub-optimal moves because of your rating, but he wouldn't assume you were a beginner. And certainly not after you got to move 17, and did quite well. If he is really an NM level player he would be the first one I have seen that plays like this.


I don't think that's particularly fair - I've seen GMs play worse than this before - just watch some of Greg's videos, for example! It's probably just a mixture of having an off day, and also not taking the game particularly seriously. While he might have had an unusually good run against some strong players an inflated rating compared to his extra strength, saying that a 195ECF player is really low level class A, based on two bad games, is a bit extreme! I'd say mid-level expert, at worst.

Anyway, I'm not saying this to big myself up at all! I'm under no illusions with these game that my victory was mostly due to him playing below standard than my brilliance :D But I think when somebody plays as many matches as he does his rating must be fairly accurate.


I didn't say low class A. I said First Category. Class A going by US standards (Which is where the classes came from) would be 1800-2000. Which would make low class A 1800-1850. I gave him 1900-2100. Which is FIDE's first category. Or US's high class A to mid expert. I also gave a range. So.. If it makes you feel any better you can pretend I said 2000-2200 I suppose, but I thought I would be more fair.

Yes, a 2200 can have an off day. So instead of getting insulted by my assessment. Go get some more games post them and show me he plays better. Until then I can only go by two games. And that isn't enough to judge strength. Understand sir. A rating doesn't tell you strength. It tells you your performance against your peers. So in this case.. If we were going to go by how these two games went, he played worse than your rating. Which is worse than my claim. (If you take performance ratings in ELO as an example it would be game 1 - minus 400 points to you rating. I believe you have it on here as 1820? so that would be 1420. Then draws give him your rating which is 1820. Add them and divide by 2. This would mean he played like he was around 1600. Would you rather that be the assessment? That is why I went by the level of the moves.)

If you feel necessary.. I don't.. but if you do.. Post better games by him against you. My personal point is that we as a community shouldn't try to convert ratings.;-) If there is a "Masters" range, introduce us to the masters range inside that pool. The fact remains that he played like any first category player I see here where I am. This is possible for someone 2200. The chances he judged you as a beginner is very unlikely.. I myself like to give master level players credit for understanding why some moves are played. Even when sick and tired.. And some of the moves were just not up to the level I would expect even a sick master to play.

I play regularly a master who is considered very rusty. He doesn't forget the basics because of rust. He even still tells me while we play 5 min games where I missed the basics. But this is not insulting you or him. I am just saying that the level of play seemed at the level I quoted. Plus didn't you say this was rapid (IE 15 min-60 min) not blitz correct? If it was blitz where it was 5 min, that could change the assessment a bit. Not everyone plays blitz well, and then I would be amazed that you took notation. :shock:

BTW: I have never in my entire life seen a GM play like this. I have beaten titled players because of a blitz blunder, or time considerations because they are slower than some people, but I have never seen one play like this.

Think about this. Why get insulted by my quote when it was basically the same as Pobble?;-) He just stuck to ECF calculations and within the players pool like it should be.

_________________
Proud supporter of Igor Smirnov's Remote Chess Academy. If you are interested in a good training program, here is the link:
http://chess-teacher.com/affiliates/idevaffiliate.php?id=1517_2_3_1


Tue Nov 12, 2013 6:49 pm
Profile YIM WWW
King

Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 3:48 pm
Posts: 625
Location: Germany
Rating Class: Expert (2000-2200)
Post Re: Scalp!
katar wrote:
Seems like you played well in both games.


Agreed. You can't be held accountable for your opponent's play, Flint. You won the first game with very solid, natural moves. Nice job spotting the weakness of f7 which is accentuated by Be7. If g5 earlier, Rf3-f6 (after an eventual c4) will be a nuisance for Black.

Edit: And good job reviving a subforum that you yourself buried on August 20. :D

_________________
- OK. I'll do a damn lot count.


Tue Nov 12, 2013 7:37 pm
Profile
King

Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:45 am
Posts: 805
Location: England
Rating: 1840
Rating Class: Class A (1800-2000)
Post Re: Scalp!
JumpNMustang wrote:
So instead of getting insulted by my assessment.


FlintEastwood wrote:
Anyway, I'm not saying this to big myself up at all! I'm under no illusions with these game that my victory was mostly due to him playing below standard than my brilliance :D But I think when somebody plays as many matches as he does his rating must be fairly accurate.


How can you read into that, that I was insulted? My point was purely a theoretical one about ratings, not personal. Anyway I don't need to prove to you his strength. If you want to think that 195EFC is Class A that's up to you. I know that he is top rated player there, and about the tournaments he has won. You can be skeptical and believe that the rating conversion system is flawed, if that's your choice. But the burden of proof is on you, not me.


Last edited by FlintEastwood on Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:20 am, edited 1 time in total.



Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:14 am
Profile
King

Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:45 am
Posts: 805
Location: England
Rating: 1840
Rating Class: Class A (1800-2000)
Post Re: Scalp!
Fox wrote:
katar wrote:
Seems like you played well in both games.


Agreed. You can't be held accountable for your opponent's play, Flint. You won the first game with very solid, natural moves. Nice job spotting the weakness of f7 which is accentuated by Be7. If g5 earlier, Rf3-f6 (after an eventual c4) will be a nuisance for Black.

Edit: And good job reviving a subforum that you yourself buried on August 20. :D


Haha, thanks Foxy! I know that last post wasn't the best game in the world but I actually quite liked some of the moves there! But doesn't seem like the CVTV crowd will be throwing any gold coins at me for that one. :D

Re the f7 weakness, I think I should have played Rf3 before Kd2. But that said, I automatically assumed (rightly in this case, but a bad assumption to make) that if I bring my king to the centre he will probably do the same, then after playing Rf3 taking on f7 would come with check, not giving him time to attack the c4 pawn. Kd2 was inaccurate, but in a human sense it achieved what I wanted.


Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:19 am
Profile
Rook

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:45 pm
Posts: 101
Location: Fresno, California
Rating: 1967
Rating Class: Class A (1800-2000)
Post Re: Scalp!
FlintEastwood wrote:
JumpNMustang wrote:
So instead of getting insulted by my assessment.


FlintEastwood wrote:
Anyway, I'm not saying this to big myself up at all! I'm under no illusions with these game that my victory was mostly due to him playing below standard than my brilliance :D But I think when somebody plays as many matches as he does his rating must be fairly accurate.


How can you read into that, that I was insulted? My point was purely a theoretical one about ratings, not personal. Anyway I don't need to prove to you his strength. If you want to think that 195EFC is Class A that's up to you. I know that he is top rated player there, and about the tournaments he has won. You can be skeptical and believe that the rating conversion system is flawed, if that's your choice. But the burden of proof is on you, not me.



Ok.. About the rating. I can say that there is no proper conversion because I am a ratings expert. I even participated on panels to test validity of rating systems. It's well known the effectiveness of attempting to make conversions. I understand the part about theoretical. Just making a comment because a lot of people misunderstand ratings. The reason I said it's probably better to give a range is because that is more accurate, especially in theoreticals. The quote about his strength again was accurate. 1900-2100 is not a weak player like you care to assume. It could be ANYWHERE between that gap.. You want to be nice and say 2150? Okay what ever.. But it's never accurate to say anything less than 50-100 points in either direction.

About his strength. Like I said. I don't know how strong he is. I judged his play based on two games. Believe me I can do that. Is that an accurate assessment of his overall playing ability? No. Of course not. I admitted that. But again.. Don't take it wrong. He didn't play well. We all have off days.

If you didn't take offense to this you wouldn't feel the need to defend either you or him. That is how I am getting that you are at least a little insulted. 8) I am merely making a judgemental observation. Nothing more.

EDIT: Think about this. If I quoted him at 1900-2100.. Wouldn't that by default put you in the same category at the very least? So if you think about it, while I am downgrading the play for his game for now, I also gave you a compliment. Saying you did at least approximately 2000 on average. Be happy either way. :)

_________________
Proud supporter of Igor Smirnov's Remote Chess Academy. If you are interested in a good training program, here is the link:
http://chess-teacher.com/affiliates/idevaffiliate.php?id=1517_2_3_1


Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:54 am
Profile YIM WWW
King

Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:45 am
Posts: 805
Location: England
Rating: 1840
Rating Class: Class A (1800-2000)
Post Re: Scalp!
JumpNMustang wrote:
If you didn't take offense to this you wouldn't feel the need to defend either you or him. That is how I am getting that you are at least a little insulted. 8) I am merely making a judgemental observation. Nothing more.


If somebody says 2+2=5 and I point out that they are wrong, that doesn't mean I'm taking offense!! I'm not saying you are wrong (although I think you are :D ), but simply that having a different opinion doesn't constitute being defensive. :)

JumpNMustang wrote:
The quote about his strength again was accurate. 1900-2100 is not a weak player like you care to assume. It could be ANYWHERE between that gap.. You want to be nice and say 2150? Okay what ever.. But it's never accurate to say anything less than 50-100 points in either direction.


But this is my issue, you don't say 100 +/-. You say -300, to -100. That's a big leap in my opinion, even taking conversion inaccuracies into account. My point is, you can't say 100 +/- AND also deduct 200 for a bad game. You say 100 +/- to take those bad games into account.

I am inclined to agree that he falls within your scale, but only because the top end falls into the 100 +/- leeway. My problem is with saying that he could be a 1900 player. For me this is a bit ridiculous. You say 1900-2100 is not weak, but 1900 is weak compared to his 2200 estimated rating. Again, no issue with the idea of using a broader spectrum, but the spectrum you have chosen contradicts your argument for saying 100+/-.


Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:43 am
Profile
Rook

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:45 pm
Posts: 101
Location: Fresno, California
Rating: 1967
Rating Class: Class A (1800-2000)
Post Re: Scalp!
FlintEastwood wrote:
JumpNMustang wrote:
If you didn't take offense to this you wouldn't feel the need to defend either you or him. That is how I am getting that you are at least a little insulted. 8) I am merely making a judgemental observation. Nothing more.


If somebody says 2+2=5 and I point out that they are wrong, that doesn't mean I'm taking offense!! I'm not saying you are wrong (although I think you are :D ), but simply that having a different opinion doesn't constitute being defensive. :)

JumpNMustang wrote:
The quote about his strength again was accurate. 1900-2100 is not a weak player like you care to assume. It could be ANYWHERE between that gap.. You want to be nice and say 2150? Okay what ever.. But it's never accurate to say anything less than 50-100 points in either direction.


But this is my issue, you don't say 100 +/-. You say -300, to -100. That's a big leap in my opinion, even taking conversion inaccuracies into account. My point is, you can't say 100 +/- AND also deduct 200 for a bad game. You say 100 +/- to take those bad games into account.

I am inclined to agree that he falls within your scale, but only because the top end falls into the 100 +/- leeway. My problem is with saying that he could be a 1900 player. For me this is a bit ridiculous. You say 1900-2100 is not weak, but 1900 is weak compared to his 2200 estimated rating. Again, no issue with the idea of using a broader spectrum, but the spectrum you have chosen contradicts your argument for saying 100+/-.



Yeah.. You are taking my range too literal. Don't look at me saying he's 1900. Take it more, I say 1900-2000.. Flip a coin and where it lands that is a good chance that is how he played that day. What are the chances if you flipped a coin it would land on 1900? Would I believe the coin should be shifted more toward 2100? Sure, but that is only because he should be based on his past history. The only thing I did was shifted him down a class. Nothing more. For some reason though you are taking the pessimistic view. Not sure why.

_________________
Proud supporter of Igor Smirnov's Remote Chess Academy. If you are interested in a good training program, here is the link:
http://chess-teacher.com/affiliates/idevaffiliate.php?id=1517_2_3_1


Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:01 am
Profile YIM WWW
King

Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:45 am
Posts: 805
Location: England
Rating: 1840
Rating Class: Class A (1800-2000)
Post Re: Scalp!
JumpNMustang wrote:
FlintEastwood wrote:
JumpNMustang wrote:
If you didn't take offense to this you wouldn't feel the need to defend either you or him. That is how I am getting that you are at least a little insulted. 8) I am merely making a judgemental observation. Nothing more.


If somebody says 2+2=5 and I point out that they are wrong, that doesn't mean I'm taking offense!! I'm not saying you are wrong (although I think you are :D ), but simply that having a different opinion doesn't constitute being defensive. :)

JumpNMustang wrote:
The quote about his strength again was accurate. 1900-2100 is not a weak player like you care to assume. It could be ANYWHERE between that gap.. You want to be nice and say 2150? Okay what ever.. But it's never accurate to say anything less than 50-100 points in either direction.


But this is my issue, you don't say 100 +/-. You say -300, to -100. That's a big leap in my opinion, even taking conversion inaccuracies into account. My point is, you can't say 100 +/- AND also deduct 200 for a bad game. You say 100 +/- to take those bad games into account.

I am inclined to agree that he falls within your scale, but only because the top end falls into the 100 +/- leeway. My problem is with saying that he could be a 1900 player. For me this is a bit ridiculous. You say 1900-2100 is not weak, but 1900 is weak compared to his 2200 estimated rating. Again, no issue with the idea of using a broader spectrum, but the spectrum you have chosen contradicts your argument for saying 100+/-.



Yeah.. You are taking my range too literal. Don't look at me saying he's 1900. Take it more, I say 1900-2000.. Flip a coin and where it lands that is a good chance that is how he played that day. What are the chances if you flipped a coin it would land on 1900? Would I believe the coin should be shifted more toward 2100? Sure, but that is only because he should be based on his past history. The only thing I did was shifted him down a class. Nothing more. For some reason though you are taking the pessimistic view. Not sure why.


I'm taking it literally because that's the range you specified! Basically what you're saying makes no sense. You say +/- 100 but then reduce an extra 200 based on observation of two informal, rapid games. Ratings don't work like that! One bad game won't drop you 200 points! I'm not being pessimistic, I just think you've been inaccurate and now you're back-tracking to say that you didn't really mean the range you gave. If you meant +/-100 why not just say +/-100? I would completely agree with you in that case. But you can't just 'shift down a class'.


Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:06 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF