ToddvsTemugin20080721.pgn
Now this was a really cool game for me. I'm not sure everything I did was completely sound, but it was FUN! I just went crazy with my attacking! I was relentless, like a pitbull! He made what I think was a mistake playing 4...Nbd7, instead of 4...c6. After that I saw my chance...and I took it! I guess looking at one problem from Practical Chess Exercises, and glancing at the first couple checkmate patterns from How to Beat Your Dad at Chess really paid off! ;-p
Anyway, now I'm W-2, D-1, L-2 on FICS. Here's a question, how many rated games do you have to play before your FICS rating is pretty close to where you actually are? It has me rated really high right now since I have played so few games, I'm wondering how long before it levels out?
Monday, July 21, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
..and he hook is now set! Tactics is your first name, Tactics is your middle name and Tactics is your Last name when you are first starting out.
nice going Todd! thats the good news, is it not?
you didnt write me because you didnt hearn for 'bad news'? just kidding. but seriously for a sec:
you are a smart man. you can be one of three chess players at any level, and i have a strong opinion as to which is best:
you can be someone with a record like:
720w/240L/40d, or
465w/465L/70d, or
someone with:
565w/987L/71d= 1503 games, normalized to 1,000 at:
376w/657L/47d
i suggest to you, that the folks to fear the most, are the ones who lose more often:
FICS-Ranked-by-competitiveness and
Various posts on FICS and playing more players who are BETTER than you.
I am rated 1856 USCF but, 1530 FICS, how does that compare with others?
iw
www.gettingto2000.blogspot.com
Blunder Prone, the hook is most definitely set!! The new books along with daily games should sharpen my tactics quite a bit...I hope!
DK, I see what you're saying...playing better opponents may net you more losses but will also increase your own skill much faster than playing equal or lesser opponents which will increase your win% but decrease the amount of available learning experiences.
Another thought I had about your comment that a player with more losses may actually be more dangerous: Perhaps another reason for this is that those players who frequently take chances and play many brilliant tactics and sacrifices (i.e. exciting chess as opposed to less-exciting prophylactic chess) may incur a higher loss percentage but be more capable of devastating tactical combinations which you never see coming.
anon, I am not a member of USCF...YET. But my FICS standard rating is 1671. That's artificially inflated because I only have 5 recorded games. So, Unfortunately I don't think my info is really comparable or helpful to you. Good luck getting to 2000! May the force be with you! :-)
anon, one reason for the difference in ratings is that there are probably quite a few people trying to cheat with a computer out there on FICS and ICC, whereas there's virtually no chance of someone cheating in OTB games (USCF rated).
On the DVD "Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine", it says that most chess players are suspicious of people trying to cheat somehow...and now that I'm playing online, I find that sometimes I do catch myself hoping that my opponent is being honest.
I agree with you that your opponent should not have played Nbd7. I would have played Bd7 which makes you decide whether you're going to retreat or trade. c6 is also okay, but I like to have the option of either playing c5 followed by Nc6, or Nc6. Your opponent just gave away too much stuff which makes an attack like that very easy to execute. Nicely done.
In terms of ratings it takes time to settle into a number that accuartely reflects your strength. Also there will be differences between your blitz rating and slow rating. On FICS my blitz rating is a pathetic 1240, but my slow rating is in the 1700s. Since I don't play much slow online chess the 1700 rating isn't totally accurate even though it lines up closer with my USCF rating. The 1240 blitz rating is meaningless because I suck at blitz especially online. I hang stuff because I don't see the board as well on a computer screen as I do when playing in person.
Getting to 2000 pointed out the dhuge differences between his FICS and USCF ratings. I suspect the USCF rating is a better indicator of his playing ability. Live chess is an entirely different beast. IMHO a much better beast too! Try it, you'll like it.
I agree, Polly, I WAYYYY prefer OTB games. Unfortunately none of my friends play chess and there isn't a local chess club.
My brother-in-law is naturally great and tactics and not hanging his pieces so he's a good opponent but he thinks chess is kind of boring because "it's always the same setup".
He prefers games like Heroscape and video games.
So, for now, I'm stuck with the internet for good opponents. It will suffice. :-\
Post a Comment