Durrr in process of losing 60k+ in a chess bet.. good month for raptor

[J_V]

[ QUOTE ]

Also any expert rated player should be a favorite over the World Champion at rook odds IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm an expert (barely) and I'd bet on the world champ in a practical 40/2 scenario. I think rook odds would be a little closer than you do, I'd imagine, but the expert would be a favorite.

[Reef]

[En Passant]

[ QUOTE ]

Opening the rook file, people think that's an advantage, but it just really is not, and will end up being far more of a liability later. As for d-pawn missing = gambit, gambit implies you have some kind of long term compensation for what you are missing, and you clearly do not in this case so describing it as a gambit doesn't really make sense. Missing the d-pawn though would be far more of a liability than the h-pawn as if you've ever studied chess at all, I'm sure you know how important central control is in the early game, and missing a central pawn puts you at an insane disadvantage in that regard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this. I don't see how an open rook file would not be an advantage.

[citanul]

JV,

What is a "practical 40/2 scenario?"

Other guy,

Yes, curtains is a decently well known somebody, in the chess world, and like, on the interwebs. I don't know exactly how public his name is, it could very well be posted in this thread already, but a totally amateur detective should be able to figure it out in about 5 minutes.

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how an open rook file would not be an advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

down material
any extra pressure is pretty negligible being on the outside

[En Passant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how an open rook file would not be an advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

down material
any extra pressure is pretty negligible being on the outside

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by "being on the outside?"

My reasoning is you're going to be down a pawn, but your rook is going to be so much more valuable with the open space to operate. The only downside I can think of is exposing the king if you are to castle to the side with the missing pawn. This downside can be avoided pretty esaily however by castling to the other side or just not castling at all.

[EmpireMaker2]

[ QUOTE ]
Is curtains some well-known chess player or something? Curtains, life story please.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wanna hear this 2

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is curtains some well-known chess player or something? Curtains, life story please.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wanna hear this 2

[/ QUOTE ]

Plays chess. Rises to the rank of International Master.

Switches to poker. Pwns.

The end.

[DaddyFatStack]

http://www.pokerstarsblog.com/2007_0...g_archive.html

go down to february 9, 2007

[MicroBob]

Just getting caught up here.
First off, Nice score Curtains. Congrats.

Have a few thoughts to respond to. I was right in the range some of you have been talking about as far as an appropriate opponent for this prop.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
curtains,

about what uscf rating would you estimate a player would have to carry to be 50/50 with you playing down a knight? down a rook?

[/ QUOTE ]

Knight: 1400-1500?
Rook: 1200-1300?

Random guesses could be off easily.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]


My best USCF rating was 1420-ish. I got to be a bit better when I was playing only ICC and had stopped playing USCF so I estimate that perhaps my true strength might have gotten as high as 1450-1500 without really putting forth that much effort in that time.

I also had played my share of tourneys including some matches against some 2400+ players where I was usually really badly outclassed. So at least I have some clue of what it's like compared with some who have never played in tourneys before.


When I was at my best-ish (estimating I was playing perhaps close to 1500) I think it's correct to say that I would be close to even-ish on this prop against Curtains if given knight-odds.
Perhaps he would be a slight favorite.

So I roughly agree with Curtains' estimate on this one.
This assumes I were given time to try to get my chess-strength close to where it once was. I'm super-duper rusty from pretty much having played zero chess games in the last 3 years or so.

One other factor is that I would be a bit more nervous than him just because he's far more experienced at dealing with pressure situations at the chess-board than I am and I think that could make a significant difference in the end if I were somehow able to keep it close.

At rook odds I certainly think I would be the favorite and also guess that his estimate of 1200-1300 is probably pretty close to correct.




[ QUOTE ]

durrr isn't 1100-1200. I am very sensitive to people overrating others because I have had a lot of students in my old schools who actually were 1100-1200. At the moment durrrr is probably in the 900-1050 range. He has an edge because he was relatively smart, in that he was taking the game very seriously and being very careful before every move he made. A weakness of most 900-1100 players is that they move too quickly and it causes them to make huge blunders.


[/ QUOTE ]


I absolutely agree with this.
He appeared to play more in the 1000 range to my eye. Perhaps a little less. He really was kinda lousy.
Very much agree that lots of players over-estimate their rating.

Anyway, Durr really didn't have much idea what he was doing.

To that end, as a 1400 (if I got playing again and shook the rust off somewhat) I feel that even I could beat Durr at his current strength giving him knight-odds although it is probably close-ish because, as Curtains noted, it's not like he was hanging his queen on every move.

In the 1400 range I think it's actually a decent balance going both ways.
I think I might have a chance of hanging with curtains if he gave me a knight if I played one of my better games.
And I think I could take Durr if I gave him a knight.


[ QUOTE ]
Almost every chessplayer whom has never played in a tournament drastically overrates their ability. If you have never played in a tournament and think that you are about 1600, you are probably about 1200-1300. Basically just subtract 300-400 points from how good you are, and that's how good you actually are.

I know this through tremendous exposure to players who have never played rated games, yet seem to think they know how good they are.

Sorry to be mean, I just find it silly how so many people are talking about how easily they would win the bet, without once giving their actual rating or any credentials of any sort. I'm mainly saying this to defend durrrr.

[/ QUOTE ]


Once again, I agree with Curtains.
Some who are making various claims in this thread clearly don't have much clue what they are talking about.

I very much believe that I'm about the lowest rated type player who would have a realistic chance of winning this bet.

If you haven't played rated games before I really don't see it happening unless you've been studying the games pretty hard and are pretty darned sure you are likely in the 1600 range (and not just guessing). And by studying hard I mean you've been going over some of Fischer's or Alehkine's games or something.
Not playing against the same chess-program once a week or so.