I understood what you meant Paul. Details can be corrected. Getting a few of them wrong helps occupy minds that would otherwise be dangerously idlePaul Cooksey wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 8:43 amIndeed he is not. It would have been more precise for me to say he is a player with a FIDE Elo of 2643 which is equivalent to an ECF rating over 2700.
I had not realised anyone would read it so literally. My intention was to imply that the description of player X could be applied to players of disparate playing strength.
Perhaps you aren't a number and are a free man but OTB so many revert to the former inadvertently.
-
- Posts: 1057
- Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 6:40 pm
Re: Perhaps you aren't a number and are a free man but OTB so many revert to the former inadvertently.
Donate to Sabrina's fundraiser at https://gofund.me/aeae42c7 to support victims of sexual abuse in the chess world.
Northumberland webmaster, Jesmond CC something-or-other. Views mine. Definitely below the Goodall Line.
Northumberland webmaster, Jesmond CC something-or-other. Views mine. Definitely below the Goodall Line.
-
- Posts: 1869
- Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:35 pm
- Location: All Of Them
Re: Perhaps you aren't a number and are a free man but OTB so many revert to the former inadvertently.
We are definitely onto something when it comes to people having the same numerical rating but vastly different means of obtaining them.
One player could be a relentlessly negative player, choosing the most dead openings, ensuring they suck the life out of every position and only daring to make any attacking progress if they feel it is 100% safe but all the whileconsidering a draw just as good a result as a win.
Then you have the maniacal hacker, generally backed up with a sharp opening and a few tactical tricks, who will attack with abandon and desperation that the position never becomes calm and their poor positional play quickly becomes their undoing.
Both players could be graded, say, 160 but I know which one of the two I would much rather face...
One player could be a relentlessly negative player, choosing the most dead openings, ensuring they suck the life out of every position and only daring to make any attacking progress if they feel it is 100% safe but all the whileconsidering a draw just as good a result as a win.
Then you have the maniacal hacker, generally backed up with a sharp opening and a few tactical tricks, who will attack with abandon and desperation that the position never becomes calm and their poor positional play quickly becomes their undoing.
Both players could be graded, say, 160 but I know which one of the two I would much rather face...
Lose one queen and it is a disaster, Lose 1000 queens and it is just a statistic.
-
- Posts: 3263
- Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:30 pm
Re: Perhaps you aren't a number and are a free man but OTB so many revert to the former inadvertently.
That's an example where ratings mean absolutely nothing.
Why do so many people tell you their rating and define themselves by it even though it changes every year and can go up and down quite a bit. Why don't they give you both the mean and a chronological account. Why do people feel as though when their opponent has learnt what their rating is they will be seen as a number and not a person.
When I was young I used to do that always. It was 'He's a 150, his name is Rod'. That was it. Then my approch to the game would be shaped around my opponents rating. If he we 30 points above, I would tell myself to concentrate more and play defensively. If 30 points less, I'd tell myself to attack. It shouldn't be like that unless the rating difference is massive.
Why do so many people tell you their rating and define themselves by it even though it changes every year and can go up and down quite a bit. Why don't they give you both the mean and a chronological account. Why do people feel as though when their opponent has learnt what their rating is they will be seen as a number and not a person.
When I was young I used to do that always. It was 'He's a 150, his name is Rod'. That was it. Then my approch to the game would be shaped around my opponents rating. If he we 30 points above, I would tell myself to concentrate more and play defensively. If 30 points less, I'd tell myself to attack. It shouldn't be like that unless the rating difference is massive.