Analysis: Please include your rating!
Darse Billings
I would like to thank those contributors to rec.games.chess who have
provided thoughtful analysis of games.
I would also like to repeat the request that contributors include their
ratings or playing levels in their signatures. This does not imply that
analysis by lower rated players is unwelcome! It is simply to provide some
context for the reader.
For that matter, mentioning how much *time* was spent on the analysis is
probably an equally important measure of the article's credibility.
Obligatory Chess:
1. e4?! c5?!
Both players prefer chaos to clarity and both sides are losing. :^)
[Time spent in analysis: 30 years]
Cheers, - Darse.
--
- Darse Billings, 2065 CFC, 7 kyu.
Go is better than Chess. Poker is more lucrative. Sex is more fun.
Bruce Harper
speaks for itself. For example, in the discussion about the exchange sacrifice
on a1 in Game 5, one view or the other is right - ratings have nothing to do
with it.
(PS: Last chance for Fischer was probably Nc3 instead of Bc3 - his position
appears to hang together after ...c4 Qc1).
Will Bralick
|
| Obligatory Chess:
|
| 1. e4?! c5?!
| Both players prefer chaos to clarity and both sides are losing. :^)
| [Time spent in analysis: 30 years]
2. f4 ;-)
Seriouslly, folx, I vaguely recall a spate of postings on the above
line ... is it sound? Did some kind soul archive the analysis? Any
references or recommendations concerning same would be appreciated.
Best regards,
--
Will Bralick | If we desire to defeat the enemy,
wbra...@afit.af.mil | we must proportion our efforts to
bra...@cs.psu.edu | his powers of resistance.
with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | - Carl von Clauswitz
Dan Fielding
> I would like to thank those contributors to rec.games.chess who have
> provided thoughtful analysis of games.
> I would also like to repeat the request that contributors include their
> ratings or playing levels in their signatures. This does not imply that
> analysis by lower rated players is unwelcome! It is simply to provide some
> context for the reader.
Why bother? How good a player is is NOT measured by rating. I've been told
that I'm an unbelievably great player, but my rating stinks. And whether or
not it's Kasparov that analyses my games, or James Coombs that analyses my
games, it doesn't matter much to me, because no matter the rating, everybody's
gonna have a good idea.
Dan Fielding, 1185 USCF, but just managed a draw with a 2150 a couple weeks
ago, so who really cares?
pa...@ipact.com
>
> How good a player is is NOT measured by rating. I've been told
> that I'm an unbelievably great player, but my rating stinks. And whether or
> not it's Kasparov that analyses my games, or James Coombs that analyses my
> games, it doesn't matter much to me, because no matter the rating, everybody's
> gonna have a good idea.
>
> Dan Fielding, 1185 USCF, but just managed a draw with a 2150 a couple weeks
> ago, so who really cares?
This thread (people claiming ratings are worthless) resurfaces periodically
in one form or another. The rating system measures *RESULTS*. It does a
decent job at it. If you play in rated tournaments a lot, and play up to
your ability, your rating will be a reasonable reflection of that ability.
If you have a long layoff, *OF COURSE* your rating will not be a good
measure of your current playing strength (you may be stronger or weaker). I
have no idea how great of a player you are, but if your rating stinks, that
means your results in your last, say, 20 games have been very poor. And if
you just managed to draw with a 2150, you will tack 16 points on your
rating for that game alone. Keep performing at that level, and your rating
will respond.
And, no disrespect to Jim intended, but Kasparov's ideas are going to be
better than James Coombs' or mine. However, having a teacher that is too
far above your head may be pointless, so an expert may be a fine teacher
for a D player.
--
Randy Pals (1902) |pa...@ipact.com
IPACT, Inc. |