31 Jan 08
Originally posted by Fat LadyHmmm Interesting
We're not supposed to comment on games on progress. But I'll comment on your opponent - he's a complete jerk.
Fat Lady
Last moved 81 days 23 hours and 53 minutes ago
(2131)
About Fat Lady
I'm just going to finish this current crop of games and then I'll be moving on. Too many engine users here and too little done to stop them.
Does this mean you are back ??
31 Jan 08
Originally posted by MctaytoI never left the chess forum. I enjoy it.
Hmmm Interesting
Fat Lady
Last moved 81 days 23 hours and 53 minutes ago
(2131)
About Fat Lady
I'm just going to finish this current crop of games and then I'll be moving on. Too many engine users here and too little done to stop them.
Does this mean you are back ??
31 Jan 08
I, like others, only care about my rating in relation to the quality of games I can get. If I were playing nothing but 900-1100 rated players all the time, I would soon grow bored, and my skills (as limited as they are) would atrophy. If I were playing players rated 1600-1800 all the time, I would become frustrated. I might get better, but I would probably quit long before that happened.
- Joined
- 09 Aug 01
- Moves
- 54019
31 Jan 08
Originally posted by Evey Hammondyour rhp rating measures your intellectual capacity.
Really. I had an opponent recently emphasize the fact that my rating was slipping, and I was outraged. But then I thought, what's a rating?
What do YOU think?
your rhp rating measures your wealth potential.
your rhp rating is an ego centric measure that motivate humans in a metric driven society.
02 Feb 08
Originally posted by duecerSame for me (but substitute 1800-2000 for 1600-1800). Although, over the long haul (short-term fluctuations are expected and meaningless) its a number I also hope to see increase, since that increase reflects a higher level of understanding and more aesthetically pleasing play.
I, like others, only care about my rating in relation to the quality of games I can get. If I were playing nothing but 900-1100 rated players all the time, I would soon grow bored, and my skills (as limited as they are) would atrophy. If I were playing players rated 1600-1800 all the time, I would become frustrated. I might get better, but I would probably quit long before that happened.
02 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by scandiumAnd most importantly, it reflects a higher level of @sskicking. 😉
Same for me (but substitute 1800-2000 for 1600-1800). Although, over the long haul (short-term fluctuations are expected and meaningless) its a number I also hope to see increase, since that increase reflects a higher level of understanding and more aesthetically pleasing play.
More seriously, chess would be a lot worse off without ratings. Ratings are a good benchmark of where your play is and they give you something to strive for. I value less my rating and more its improvement. I would rather be 1600 but rising than 1800 with no growth.
04 Feb 08
Originally posted by Dragon FireThank you, that is absolutely right. elady asked for a resignation when it was still possible to win, then got mad when I continued to play. I would think this person would acknowledge my right to exist. I'm going for 40 days and 40 nights of benign neglect.
Don't want to comment on a GIP but I guess you feel you could win this and think your opponent is being a jerk by not resigning or moving quickly.
I think you are wrong. He is spending a little time finding the forced win (for him) that is there.
04 Feb 08
4 edits
Originally posted by Fat LadyGame 4460051
We're not supposed to comment on games on progress. But I'll comment on your opponent - he's a complete jerk.
04 Feb 08
Originally posted by Dragon FireHuh, can you offer assistance in the forums?
Don't want to comment on a GIP but I guess you feel you could win this and think your opponent is being a jerk by not resigning or moving quickly.
I think you are wrong. He is spending a little time finding the forced win (for him) that is there.