in the game above Im black
It depends on who you ask, Elo is just a reference of your development in a tournament. The one who you beat with 1800 could also get 2000 or 1500.
Some people say that this page exagerates Elo, but in fact, every player has the same parameters to consider your Elo punctuation.
So at the end everything is equal.
Some people say that this page exagerates Elo, but in fact, every player has the same parameters to consider your Elo punctuation.
So at the end everything is equal.
You won bc you opponents blundered. Don't expect a win from a 1800 player if your only plan is that your opponent blunders. Of course as we can see it happens, but you will not get to the same level that way.
@Microraver it's complicated, but I agree with what Drinks... said. Still, ultrabullet might be less about chess than mastering your mouse ;)
@Microraver it's complicated, but I agree with what Drinks... said. Still, ultrabullet might be less about chess than mastering your mouse ;)
I'll offer some thoughts:
GAME #1: I will tell you that I am outright surprised at the poor level of play black exhibited, especially given his rating. I will tell you that most 2200 players will not make moves as silly as 2. Nc6?? or e5?, so please don't think this game is representative of skill at this level overall.
GAME #2: A game I feel representative more of the true skill of both players - you developed better than white, but beginning with 12...Bxb5 your position collapses - looking back, what was your plan? Your pieces don't seem to be coordinating in any meaningful way. After white plays 16. Qd4, you need to realize that a7 only has one defender, so if you move the rook, you've left that pawn hanging. Additionally, positionally speaking you have some deficiencies: your king is still in the center, and white is thinking about breaking open the center. It's unfortunate, as focusing on king safety first would have allowed you to get kingside before white could play Ba6 and trap your king in the middle of the board where it's more likely to come under fire. Additionally, your light-square bishop is a bad piece right now, blocked in by your pawn structure and queen. You need to start coordinating and come up with some type of plan to generate counterplay as after move 17, white stands, positionally speaking, much better. He has completed development, connected his rooks, prevented your castling and is preparing some play in the center. After 17...Rc7, you have your rook and queen on a hopeless file, blocked in by your c4 pawn. Your rooks are not connected and will not be for some time.
I'm not going to go through the whole game, as I think you could learn much more by analyzing it yourself in depth. You need to do that for all of your games, losses especially, asking yourself questions about what you were thinking, what you could have done differently, etc. Just from looking at that one game, it's clear you need to work on harmonious development, coordinating your pieces in a way that doesn't lose tempi to your opponent. Watch your pieces and make sure you don't hang material, as against better opponents you're shooting yourself in the foot.
GAME #1: I will tell you that I am outright surprised at the poor level of play black exhibited, especially given his rating. I will tell you that most 2200 players will not make moves as silly as 2. Nc6?? or e5?, so please don't think this game is representative of skill at this level overall.
GAME #2: A game I feel representative more of the true skill of both players - you developed better than white, but beginning with 12...Bxb5 your position collapses - looking back, what was your plan? Your pieces don't seem to be coordinating in any meaningful way. After white plays 16. Qd4, you need to realize that a7 only has one defender, so if you move the rook, you've left that pawn hanging. Additionally, positionally speaking you have some deficiencies: your king is still in the center, and white is thinking about breaking open the center. It's unfortunate, as focusing on king safety first would have allowed you to get kingside before white could play Ba6 and trap your king in the middle of the board where it's more likely to come under fire. Additionally, your light-square bishop is a bad piece right now, blocked in by your pawn structure and queen. You need to start coordinating and come up with some type of plan to generate counterplay as after move 17, white stands, positionally speaking, much better. He has completed development, connected his rooks, prevented your castling and is preparing some play in the center. After 17...Rc7, you have your rook and queen on a hopeless file, blocked in by your c4 pawn. Your rooks are not connected and will not be for some time.
I'm not going to go through the whole game, as I think you could learn much more by analyzing it yourself in depth. You need to do that for all of your games, losses especially, asking yourself questions about what you were thinking, what you could have done differently, etc. Just from looking at that one game, it's clear you need to work on harmonious development, coordinating your pieces in a way that doesn't lose tempi to your opponent. Watch your pieces and make sure you don't hang material, as against better opponents you're shooting yourself in the foot.
@Microraver I am not a teenager or a young 20 something anymore... Your right! If I was a youngster then maybe working 60 hours a week framing houses and having enough energy left over to play chess well would not be a problem. Perhaps, I am not articulate enough to convey my point of view... but, I will try: If you look at the performance charts of a large swath of players you may notice that some players have a steady upward trajectory ( I believe that this trajectory is atypical, ) Far more common you will see players with volatile and sometimes very volatile performance tracks... Why is this? Do you study the performance history and statistics of your opponents? I once played a 1400 player who destroyed me, ( I was a 1700 player at the time. ) After the game I checked out this player history and statistics: He/she had been rated over 1800 several times... 1800 peaks and 1400 valleys over the course of 1000's of games... His/her 5 best wins were against 2000 plus opponents... His/her 5 worst losses against 1200ish opponents. There was another player that I had played well against and beat with the gruenfeld...I followed him for a while ( user name: pullwhiskey ) I saw him destroy a high rated player with the king's indian defense and it was a perfect game ( no inaccuracies, no mistakes, no blunders...a pro! ) But, I saw this same player play extremely poor chess... Check out his games! Interesting stuff! My point is, I guess, is that chess players come in all shapes and sizes: i.e. different ages, backgrounds, circumstances, etc. the list goes on. And there is alot of rating volatility, for whatever reasons, that is why I personally like to use other analytical methods to figure my current chess strength. Well, I've said enough...( I've got to go to bed, a long day tommorrow. ) God bless.
#28 you were probably playing some poor alcoholic or something.
nobody fluctuates 400 points unless they're on drugs.
nobody fluctuates 400 points unless they're on drugs.
@DrinksLikeTyrion Um idk what game your talking about when you say game 2
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.