OTB chess is totally different online chess
Dear Ono,
it was fun to read your blog.
I am myself a chess coach in my club, so it's just a hobby for me.
In club tournaments there is most of the time a high rating gap. I am almost ever the highest rated player in our tournements with a rating of 2k fide (our other 2k players skip most of the time these tournements for privat reasons). The other players have ratings up to 1700.
So I can understand the feeling of "That I should win anyways"
Good for you, that you reached this point so early in your OTB career, because this can bite back very hard.
Your approach of taking every opponent seriously I learned the hard way in my youth. I had a 1600 rating and played in the first round of an open an opponent with a rating of only 1000 - the worst player in the tournament.
He outplayed me in the opening and I had a lost position and was just waiting for his mistakes, finaly he blundered and I could win, but it was not because I played well. This felt very bad and showed me how easy you can fail and that even a lower rated player can give you a very hard time.
Funny story: In the same tournament I faced a 1900 player, who didn't take me seriously. He missplaced his pieces without letting go and then planting them on the obvious squares and generaly played in a disrespectful way. Later on he blundered, I think, it was a lack of concentration - after that he tried to fix his position and took the game serious, but it was to late and I won.
with best regards
Fjallgart
it was fun to read your blog.
I am myself a chess coach in my club, so it's just a hobby for me.
In club tournaments there is most of the time a high rating gap. I am almost ever the highest rated player in our tournements with a rating of 2k fide (our other 2k players skip most of the time these tournements for privat reasons). The other players have ratings up to 1700.
So I can understand the feeling of "That I should win anyways"
Good for you, that you reached this point so early in your OTB career, because this can bite back very hard.
Your approach of taking every opponent seriously I learned the hard way in my youth. I had a 1600 rating and played in the first round of an open an opponent with a rating of only 1000 - the worst player in the tournament.
He outplayed me in the opening and I had a lost position and was just waiting for his mistakes, finaly he blundered and I could win, but it was not because I played well. This felt very bad and showed me how easy you can fail and that even a lower rated player can give you a very hard time.
Funny story: In the same tournament I faced a 1900 player, who didn't take me seriously. He missplaced his pieces without letting go and then planting them on the obvious squares and generaly played in a disrespectful way. Later on he blundered, I think, it was a lack of concentration - after that he tried to fix his position and took the game serious, but it was to late and I won.
with best regards
Fjallgart
Easier said than done, one should play the pieces, not the person. In my games, I have found that I have a good win records against some players who are rated higher, but have a miserable record against some who are always rated lower. I have not checked whether these higher-rated players prefer openings that I am good at, ending up in positions that I am familiar with, and vice versa.
Chess is too complex for a single number to represent ability, at least at the lower levels. Just due to sheer repetition, some players may develop an above-average understanding of certain openings and the ensuing middle game positions.
That problem likely does not exist for pros with astronomical ratings.
Chess is too complex for a single number to represent ability, at least at the lower levels. Just due to sheer repetition, some players may develop an above-average understanding of certain openings and the ensuing middle game positions.
That problem likely does not exist for pros with astronomical ratings.
Umm, it's just a game
I am probably wrong on this, since I am fairly new to chess and know nothing about OTB competitions; but shouldn't you be able to take back your move as long as you haven't stopped the clock and it's still your turn?
@SamIAm_jp said in #16:
> I am probably wrong on this, since I am fairly new to chess and know nothing about OTB competitions; but shouldn't you be able to take back your move as long as you haven't stopped the clock and it's still your turn?
No, it's the complete opposite. In fact if you even *touch* a piece, that's the one you have to move.
It's called the touch-move rule.
> I am probably wrong on this, since I am fairly new to chess and know nothing about OTB competitions; but shouldn't you be able to take back your move as long as you haven't stopped the clock and it's still your turn?
No, it's the complete opposite. In fact if you even *touch* a piece, that's the one you have to move.
It's called the touch-move rule.
@Schtaeve said in #16:
> No, it's the complete opposite. In fact if you even *touch* a piece, that's the one you have to move.
>
> It's called the touch-move rule.
Thank you for clarifying.
The more I think about it, the more that makes sense, because if that wasn't the case then players could just move around the pieces as much as they want and they wouldn't have to mentally calculate during the game.
> No, it's the complete opposite. In fact if you even *touch* a piece, that's the one you have to move.
>
> It's called the touch-move rule.
Thank you for clarifying.
The more I think about it, the more that makes sense, because if that wasn't the case then players could just move around the pieces as much as they want and they wouldn't have to mentally calculate during the game.
Rating is fun, but we stress too much about it. The best thing is just to get challenging, beautiful chess games (that I win, hopefully). It's actually pretty impressive this player who isn't rated very high online did so well OTB. Just goes to show you how different chess actually is with a lot of extra time to think.
I also love how he is able to coach new players despite not achieving a rating. Maybe this is even optimal considering my personal experiences with GM coaches is that they just think I'm a moron and usually want to explain why my moves are bad, tell me to go do tactics for an hour a day, and end the lesson. Perhaps it's better if a player is only marginally better than their students and can understand them and the way they approach chess better.
I also love how he is able to coach new players despite not achieving a rating. Maybe this is even optimal considering my personal experiences with GM coaches is that they just think I'm a moron and usually want to explain why my moves are bad, tell me to go do tactics for an hour a day, and end the lesson. Perhaps it's better if a player is only marginally better than their students and can understand them and the way they approach chess better.
@SamIAm_jp said in #17:
>
and why should they have to only mentally do it? why not have analysis boards for offloadning, and make it a game of problem solving task, not just a memory task, or not a memory task bottleneck or barrier of potential for those who are more into problem solving. There could be open book competition categories. Why not some external analysis board (visible or not to oppoenent). This could still be controlled social layer of chess competition. Different cognitivice styles, or lifetime chess birth age could have their own competition. I am not sure that all the ratings distribution in such category would correspond to those in the memrory task bottleneck ones, the usual. Assumptions, and common sense not made explicit, might make us miss whole new worlds of fun, beside the podium thrill drive....
>
and why should they have to only mentally do it? why not have analysis boards for offloadning, and make it a game of problem solving task, not just a memory task, or not a memory task bottleneck or barrier of potential for those who are more into problem solving. There could be open book competition categories. Why not some external analysis board (visible or not to oppoenent). This could still be controlled social layer of chess competition. Different cognitivice styles, or lifetime chess birth age could have their own competition. I am not sure that all the ratings distribution in such category would correspond to those in the memrory task bottleneck ones, the usual. Assumptions, and common sense not made explicit, might make us miss whole new worlds of fun, beside the podium thrill drive....
The first year of OTB chess can be tough. You are playing against people who care much more than your average online player. Winning 7 out of 10 games is a good result regardless of the rating levels of the opponents.