Anyone can beat anyone xxx
@SOJB said in #41:
> Anyone can beat anyone xxx
Not in chess tho. I could never beat Carlsen or another top GM and I think you could never beat me even if we play 100 games. You can call it big head syndrome or whatever you want but that's how things are.
> Anyone can beat anyone xxx
Not in chess tho. I could never beat Carlsen or another top GM and I think you could never beat me even if we play 100 games. You can call it big head syndrome or whatever you want but that's how things are.
@Hagredion said in #42:
> Not in chess tho. I could never beat Carlsen or another top GM and I think you could never beat me even if we play 100 games. You can call it big head syndrome or whatever you want but that's how things are.
Last person that said that lost in game 2 of 20 and had to eat humble pie , is this a challenge ? 100 games classical for the next two years once a week and you don't think you would lose one? Ok challenge accepted xxx lol don't be backing out now saying I only play blitz ,you've challenged a lower rated player . I'll play you every week classical for a hundred weeks . We can set it up have cheer leaders and everything
> Not in chess tho. I could never beat Carlsen or another top GM and I think you could never beat me even if we play 100 games. You can call it big head syndrome or whatever you want but that's how things are.
Last person that said that lost in game 2 of 20 and had to eat humble pie , is this a challenge ? 100 games classical for the next two years once a week and you don't think you would lose one? Ok challenge accepted xxx lol don't be backing out now saying I only play blitz ,you've challenged a lower rated player . I'll play you every week classical for a hundred weeks . We can set it up have cheer leaders and everything
@Hagredion said in #42:
> Not in chess tho. I could never beat Carlsen or another top GM and I think you could never beat me even if we play 100 games. You can call it big head syndrome or whatever you want but that's how things are.
What about time odds? Would that ever be enough to make up for a big rating difference? For example if you had an 800 playing against a 2200 in 1+0 bullet, but the 800 had 5 minutes. Would that be enough to make up for the skill difference in your opinion?
> Not in chess tho. I could never beat Carlsen or another top GM and I think you could never beat me even if we play 100 games. You can call it big head syndrome or whatever you want but that's how things are.
What about time odds? Would that ever be enough to make up for a big rating difference? For example if you had an 800 playing against a 2200 in 1+0 bullet, but the 800 had 5 minutes. Would that be enough to make up for the skill difference in your opinion?
@QueenRosieMary Nope, zero chances for the 800. I used to play 1 vs 5 odds against one 1200 guy and I think I won like 90% of the games but I was still rated 1950 - 2000 and wasn't even that fast for my rating. I think the 2200 would need to give at least queen odds in addition to time odds to make it interesting.
@Hagredion said in #45:
> @QueenRosieMary Nope, zero chances for the 800. I used to play 1 vs 5 odds against one 1200 guy and I think I won like 90% of the games but I was still rated 1950 - 2000 and wasn't even that fast for my rating. I think the 2200 would need to give at least queen odds in addition to time odds to make it interesting.
Well, that's an interesting point of view. I would probably think the same if I hadn't seen it myself. Zero chances for the 2200 as it turned out this time ;) . @TeenageDimwit thanks for being a good sport, and sorry, I know you wish this game and some others like it would just disappear into a void and never be dug up again, but it serves to prove a useful point, you should never underestimate your opponent. Upsets are always possible, however unlikely they might seem
> @QueenRosieMary Nope, zero chances for the 800. I used to play 1 vs 5 odds against one 1200 guy and I think I won like 90% of the games but I was still rated 1950 - 2000 and wasn't even that fast for my rating. I think the 2200 would need to give at least queen odds in addition to time odds to make it interesting.
Well, that's an interesting point of view. I would probably think the same if I hadn't seen it myself. Zero chances for the 2200 as it turned out this time ;) . @TeenageDimwit thanks for being a good sport, and sorry, I know you wish this game and some others like it would just disappear into a void and never be dug up again, but it serves to prove a useful point, you should never underestimate your opponent. Upsets are always possible, however unlikely they might seem
@Hitsugaya said in #9:
> As a 2000 player I feel obligated to say that we are qualified to give advices to sub-1400 players. Why not?
>
> BTW if you also want advices to get back to 2000 we can help.
> First advice would be to be a lot more confident about your skills, you're good, do any moves you feel right and don't calculate, it'll work out don't worry.
I think as a higher rated player, you have earned the right to give advice... sure... and it should be listened to. I think, as with anything in life though, unsolicited advice never goes well and with something like chess, people tend to hang their IQ on their moves. So in this case, I think it is important to tread lightly not to crush someone's spirit. If people ask for tips, by all means, SHARE, we'd love to know. Pointing out every wrong move after a person just got defeated, not a great time for learning. Just my opinion
> As a 2000 player I feel obligated to say that we are qualified to give advices to sub-1400 players. Why not?
>
> BTW if you also want advices to get back to 2000 we can help.
> First advice would be to be a lot more confident about your skills, you're good, do any moves you feel right and don't calculate, it'll work out don't worry.
I think as a higher rated player, you have earned the right to give advice... sure... and it should be listened to. I think, as with anything in life though, unsolicited advice never goes well and with something like chess, people tend to hang their IQ on their moves. So in this case, I think it is important to tread lightly not to crush someone's spirit. If people ask for tips, by all means, SHARE, we'd love to know. Pointing out every wrong move after a person just got defeated, not a great time for learning. Just my opinion
<Comment deleted by user>
This post makes me laugh. Sure anyone can give advise to anyone else. But big heads? 2000+ lichess is like 1500+ ELO OTB. I should know I'm 2000's in both blitz and bullet and I suck at chess.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.