Author: blass uri
Date: 06:47:05 12/28/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 28, 1999 at 06:46:15, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On December 28, 1999 at 04:38:07, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>>Posted by Vincent Diepeveen on December 27, 1999 at 15:48:18: >>> >>>>At least once a week I receive email in similar wordings. That's of course >>>>very nice stuff to read but what puzzles me is Rebel's progress through the >>>>years in this respect. >>>> >>>>I mean this: I am a 1800 player, very bad in tactics but with a positional >>>>understanding of 2000, maybe a bit more. How to judge progress in Rebel's >>>>positional understanding every time I add new chess knowledge? >>> >>>Statistically spoken you should not even near to 1500 Ed. >>> >>>Non actively chess playing people are hugely overestimating their >>>chessstrength/insight. >>> >>>I can't find you at any dutch rating list, >>>so my assumption is that you're one of those guys. >> >>You can be right you also can be wrong. When I was 14-15 years I became >>a member of a chess club and left after a few weeks because of all the >>smoke (mainly cigars) and never returned to a chess club. I have played >>several youth tournaments in The Hague (in the AEGON building) and >>from that time is my estimated 1800 elo rating. > >Let's see. 30-40 Years later nothing is left of course of such a rating. >Till around 2200 missing tactics means you lose anyway. I do not agree that nothing is left of such a rating. It depends on the person. I know at least one player who did not forget to play inspite of the fact that he is not playing. If Ed's tactical ability is like 1700 and Ed's positional knowledge is more than 2000 then I think that 1800 rating or more is clearly logical. Uri
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.