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

[MicroBob]

curtains - exactly. That's what I immediately thought when I read that he's a 1700 rated player.........on Yahoo.

I haven't played on yahoo before but I would be absolutely stunned if a 1700 on there translated to anything close to 1700 in USCF and you obviously agree with/confirmed my hunch.

As a 1400 in USCF I was able to peak at 1730 or something on ICC. Yeah, I might have had SOME improvement in there.
But mostly it was just ratings-inflation. If I had gone back to a USCF tourney I would be surprised if I was playing much higher than a 1500 level there.

And somehow it's my hunch that a 1700 on ICC would translate to an even higher rating on Yahoo but I'm not positive on that.

It is my hunch that Adanthar would lose to Curtains giving rook odds although I would have to think he would put up a better fight than durr did.

[Lalu]

Well of course if 1700 doesn't equal 1700 USCF then it's a completely different matter. Putting that aside though, my main beef was really with the theory that you could just clog the position up and win your material back slowly and that the extra rook wouldn't come into play until the end of the middlegame, which I think is completely wrong whether your opponent is 1700 or 800.

[TheWorstPlayer]

MORE CHESS PROP BETS PLEASE

I'm not baller, so I can't wager 50K, but I will wager up to 1K if I think the bet is close. Someone suggest something fun chess-related to bet on, please.

[StregaChess]

[ QUOTE ]


Ok but adanthar is using his yahoo rating which is completely meaningless. This is why there are so many people who think they are better than they aer, because they believe these random Internet chess sites to have somewhat accurate ratings. You can easily be 1700 and actually play at about a 1000-1100 level.

Honestly if you've never played a real chess tournament, its 95+% likely that you are gigantic underdog against me if I give you rook odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only internet indicator of skill might be if you use ICC, and even with that the blitz ratings are all over the map. I've play many title players with blitz ratings of 1200 on ICC. There is web based site called instantchess I got comp'd like 130 games on there for my b-day and my rating is up to 2230 in blitz and god knows I'm not playing that well. To echo back what Curtains is saying if you've never played in a real tourney you have no idea at all how good you are, or are not.

[KurtSF]

Looking at this discussion of player rating in chess I have decided that we NEED a one-dimensional single-number rating system for poker players also.

"Since aba is a 2700-2800, my rating is around 1400, could I beat him if I got one-eyed Jacks wild?"

"No way. But if you got one-eyed Jacks and suicide Kings odds, you might have a chance."

[Dire]

ICC 5-min seems to have the best correlation to actual skill I've seen. It's a bit less mouse jockeying than 3-min blitz and you can't artifically inflate your rating by cherry picking opponents.

[adanthar]

Yeah, I am/was nowhere near an actual 1700, that's why the 'lol' [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I played like one tournament lifetime, in eighth grade, and went 3-1 for a rating of 1200-something? It doesn't matter, obviously in a real game I'd get crushed every time. I think I'd tend to pull it off with rook odds just because my technical game is much stronger than durrr's and I know the importance of the center in the midgame, but I'd definitely get crushed with knight odds.

[StregaChess]

[ QUOTE ]
ICC 5-min seems to have the best correlation to actual skill I've seen. It's a bit less mouse jockeying than 3-min blitz and you can't artifically inflate your rating by cherry picking opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes you might be right, when I said 1200 for titles players I was not thinking clearly, I've only faced them at 1-min. I think 5 min is a bit closer to the real deal.

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]
Granted I'm not a 1700 player anymore, but I'm quite sure when I was, I would have beaten curtains at his present strength 95%+ of the time with rook odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Find yourself a legitimate 1700 player and if I can talk curtains into it (or find a player of almost equivalent strength), perhaps we'll make ourselves a bet. Not for 50k (necessarily, depends how stupid you're willing to be), but maybe 5k.

Hell, if you think someone like that would win 95% of the time, you can give ME odds [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

What was the time control on the durr/curtains match, anyone know?


"Use of that extra rook often doesn't come into play until the end of the middle game, after some files have been cleared/pieces have been traded."


That's completely wrong, and I frankly can't comprehend how you could even begin to think that's true even if you're a fair beginner at chess. The concepts of opening, middlegame, and endgame can hardly even be used in such a game, rook odds skew the game far too much to properly define what those really mean in an odds game.

[/ QUOTE ]

[citanul]

put me down for someone who would gladly take even money on a good, in practice 1700 player vs curtains minus a rook