2100 on lichess.org is closer to 1800 elo too so this has some a tendency towards confusion.
#21
No no, it’s more like 3000 here = 900 in these scary serious OTB tournaments. Please...
No no, it’s more like 3000 here = 900 in these scary serious OTB tournaments. Please...
This is maybe slightly off-topic, but one of the systems against the Pirc - with Be3-Qd2 then Bh6 - is called the 150 attack because its the sort of play typical of ECF grade 150 (~1800 ELO) players.
Which has the indirect implication that while suitable at ~1800 level, it no longer works above that as players are more defensively resilient.
Which has the indirect implication that while suitable at ~1800 level, it no longer works above that as players are more defensively resilient.
#23
It’s called 150 attack because it’s so effective that players with that rating can get a good position with it without learning much theory. It’s a compliment to an opening. It’s not because 150 rated players play it, it’s because the opening is that easy and good. Mamedov crushed Grischuk with something very similar in a well known game, it’s not just for beginners.
It’s called 150 attack because it’s so effective that players with that rating can get a good position with it without learning much theory. It’s a compliment to an opening. It’s not because 150 rated players play it, it’s because the opening is that easy and good. Mamedov crushed Grischuk with something very similar in a well known game, it’s not just for beginners.
@piscatorox lol ... I always wanted to understand the meaning of this number!
This is not so offtopic and tends to expose one of the secrets of resilience.
For resilient players (and hence higher rated players) a draw is ok! Players, say beginners, want to win, just win! They do not know when to stop the attack and end up allowing counterattacks because they weaken their position too much.
I remember one game between Karpov vs Kasparov where Kasparov analyzes the implications of a direct white attack. Kasparov shows the analysis and comments: and that would lead to nothing. Then a few moves later he would return to the same attack and comment: here it would also lead to nothing. That is, the players do not engage in a futile attack, they are only concrete when there is an advantage and avoid unnecessary risks and are happy to draw, draw is good if you have no better position!
Many sicilian positions white can attack, but black have resources which neutralize and white reach a equal position (which is worst than initial position where white was slightly better!).
Howrever, beginner or club players like to insist on these 'sac, sac and mate' fischer attacks because beginners or club players don't know how to defend, don't understand the resources available, etc.
This is why many favorite club player openings, such as the king indian mar del plata variation, many dragon defense positions, etc., are not popular at a high level: they are very concrete positions that over time black (or white) found ways to counteract any direct attack!
This is not so offtopic and tends to expose one of the secrets of resilience.
For resilient players (and hence higher rated players) a draw is ok! Players, say beginners, want to win, just win! They do not know when to stop the attack and end up allowing counterattacks because they weaken their position too much.
I remember one game between Karpov vs Kasparov where Kasparov analyzes the implications of a direct white attack. Kasparov shows the analysis and comments: and that would lead to nothing. Then a few moves later he would return to the same attack and comment: here it would also lead to nothing. That is, the players do not engage in a futile attack, they are only concrete when there is an advantage and avoid unnecessary risks and are happy to draw, draw is good if you have no better position!
Many sicilian positions white can attack, but black have resources which neutralize and white reach a equal position (which is worst than initial position where white was slightly better!).
Howrever, beginner or club players like to insist on these 'sac, sac and mate' fischer attacks because beginners or club players don't know how to defend, don't understand the resources available, etc.
This is why many favorite club player openings, such as the king indian mar del plata variation, many dragon defense positions, etc., are not popular at a high level: they are very concrete positions that over time black (or white) found ways to counteract any direct attack!
It seems to me that "resilience" can be easily observed whenever there is any big player strength mismatch, regardless of what the rating ranges are.
Even when the higher rated player is losing, they seem to possess some kind of clairvoyance that apparently allows them to perfectly foresee everything that the lower rated player is trying to do, and thus make the converting process incredibly difficult.
That can be observed at any time control, from Online Bullet to Classical Over The Board games. Obviously, the methods vary, but the end result is the same: to minimize the weaker player's winning chances.
It's true that defensive technique improves at higher levels (just like everything else does), and that comes from an improved appreciation of the possibilites on the board. However, that's true for any improvements in rating, so I believe that it just has to do with the relative strengths of both players.
2100+ are "resilient", but you should notice that you are more resilient too, so it evens out. If you compare a 2100's resilience to an active Grandmaster's resilience, it does not even come close...
Even when the higher rated player is losing, they seem to possess some kind of clairvoyance that apparently allows them to perfectly foresee everything that the lower rated player is trying to do, and thus make the converting process incredibly difficult.
That can be observed at any time control, from Online Bullet to Classical Over The Board games. Obviously, the methods vary, but the end result is the same: to minimize the weaker player's winning chances.
It's true that defensive technique improves at higher levels (just like everything else does), and that comes from an improved appreciation of the possibilites on the board. However, that's true for any improvements in rating, so I believe that it just has to do with the relative strengths of both players.
2100+ are "resilient", but you should notice that you are more resilient too, so it evens out. If you compare a 2100's resilience to an active Grandmaster's resilience, it does not even come close...
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.