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

[suzzer99]

[ QUOTE ]
Someone suggest something fun chess-related to bet on, please.

[/ QUOTE ]

How far can you shove a King up... Oh nevermind.

[Lalu]

Agreed, I would bet $5k on a 1700 player in a heartbeat vs. curtains with rook odds. If you honestly think he's a favorite in that game, I don't think you understand rating strengths (1700 being 1700 USCF not some other unknown rating system).

[Gullanian]

lol variance in chess?

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed, I would bet $5k on a 1700 player in a heartbeat vs. curtains with rook odds. If you honestly think he's a favorite in that game, I don't think you understand rating strengths (1700 being 1700 USCF not some other unknown rating system).

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't played regular time control chess for a good 15 years, but back when I did a friend of mine who was a chess tutor said he'd put me at about 1800, when I'm not being an idiot. I've also played a bunch of blitz check in the last 15 years and when not being an idiot was at about 1800 (I understand there's some ratings inflation there and so that was probably equivalent to 1600 or so USCF).

So while you guys (at least curtains, Lalu) have a much better sense than I do of what a 1700 USCF could do, I didn't think I was completely talking out of my ass, especially if this game would be a blitz game. I don't think that while I was around my best that I could take someone of curtain's caliber down 75% of the time, as one person put it, or 95% of the time, as I believe Lalu put it.

At blitz, I think the 2600 would be a favorite (if not a huge one), though that might not be true for a longer game. Even with a longer control, though, I really can't see the 1700 player straight-out WINNING 95% of the time, as was claimed.

So (and now, I *am* pulling some #s out of my ass), I'd expect a the score in a 10-game blitz match to be something like 5:5 or 6:4 in favor of the 2600, and the score to be something like 3:7 in favor of the 1700 if there was a longer control.

[Lalu]

"So (and now, I *am* pulling some #s out of my ass), I'd expect a the score in a 10-game blitz match to be something like 5:5 or 6:4 in favor of the 2600, and the score to be something like 3:7 in favor of the 1700 if there was a longer control."


Of course it depends of the strong player you are speaking of in blitz (some IMs are very good blitz players like curtains, while others are not). I think your estimates are pretty reasonable on the whole though, certainly the score would be closer in blitz than regular chess. My guess of 95% might have been a tad high, but I'd be very surprised if it was lower than 80%. My guess is around 85% in slow chess, 65% in blitz. If you want some other action, I'm still willing to take curtains on in equal material at 3:2 time odds if you or anyone else is game [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Agreed, I would bet $5k on a 1700 player in a heartbeat vs. curtains with rook odds. If you honestly think he's a favorite in that game, I don't think you understand rating strengths (1700 being 1700 USCF not some other unknown rating system).

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't played regular time control chess for a good 15 years, but back when I did a friend of mine who was a chess tutor said he'd put me at about 1800, when I'm not being an idiot. I've also played a bunch of blitz check in the last 15 years and when not being an idiot was at about 1800 (I understand there's some ratings inflation there and so that was probably equivalent to 1600 or so USCF).

So while you guys (at least curtains, Lalu) have a much better sense than I do of what a 1700 USCF could do, I didn't think I was completely talking out of my ass, especially if this game would be a blitz game. I don't think that while I was around my best that I could take someone of curtain's caliber down 75% of the time, as one person put it, or 95% of the time, as I believe Lalu put it.

At blitz, I think the 2600 would be a favorite (if not a huge one), though that might not be true for a longer game. Even with a longer control, though, I really can't see the 1700 player straight-out WINNING 95% of the time, as was claimed.

So (and now, I *am* pulling some #s out of my ass), I'd expect a the score in a 10-game blitz match to be something like 5:5 or 6:4 in favor of the 2600, and the score to be something like 3:7 in favor of the 1700 if there was a longer control.

[/ QUOTE ]


Grisga, almost everyone who doesn't have a USCF rating or some organized standard rating, and thniks they know their strength because someone told them what it was, is overestimating their strength drastically. I've seen it time and time again, "someone said I'm 1800 strength" usually means they are about 1200-1400 strength.

I've almost never ever in my life seen one case of someone who thinks they know their rating strength, without having gotten one officially, and is not way overestimating it. Almost every single one of them have a reason that may sound very rational as to why they think they are so good, but its almost never true and they will be lucky to be within 200 points of their believed strength.

[curtains]

In 3 0 (5 0 is closer) Im a huge favorite against any average 1700 player in blitz with rook odds. They would have absolutely no chance to beat me in the long run, assuming that 1700 is their true strength. Trust me on this one, its not even close. At G/60 I should be a clear underdog.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
In 3 0 (5 0 is closer) Im a huge favorite against any average 1700 player in blitz with rook odds. They would have absolutely no chance to beat me in the long run, assuming that 1700 is their true strength. Trust me on this one, its not even close. At G/60 I should be a clear underdog.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this just because you expect to be able to win enough material back to make the endgame too painful for a blitz game? Or just that your tactical vision will be relatively more important at blitz speeds?

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]


Grisga, almost everyone who doesn't have a USCF rating or some organized standard rating, and thniks they know their strength because someone told them what it was, is overestimating their strength drastically. I've seen it time and time again, "someone said I'm 1800 strength" usually means they are about 1200-1400 strength.

I've almost never ever in my life seen one case of someone who thinks they know their rating strength, without having gotten one officially, and is not way overestimating it. Almost every single one of them have a reason that may sound very rational as to why they think they are so good, but its almost never true and they will be lucky to be within 200 points of their believed strength.

[/ QUOTE ]


Once again repeating my agreement with Curtains.
There are so many unrated players who have some friend or tutor or USCF-rated friend who gives them a really generous estimate of what their rating would be.

My experience in the 3 or 4 different clubs I've played in in different cities regarding unrated players has been very similar.

Very few who say they are 1600-ish strength but don't have their rating yet are actually 1600 strength.


Also, the part about "when I'm not being an idiot" is kind of LOL.
You don't get to just pick and choose from only the times when you are playing well.

If I got to throw out my rated games from when "I was being an idiot" my USCF would zip up from 1400 to 1800 in a heartbeat.

Saying "when I'm not an idiot I'm about 1800 strength" is roughly the same as a baseball player saying, "when I'm not striking-out I'm a .650 hitter."

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
In 3 0 (5 0 is closer) Im a huge favorite against any average 1700 player in blitz with rook odds. They would have absolutely no chance to beat me in the long run, assuming that 1700 is their true strength. Trust me on this one, its not even close. At G/60 I should be a clear underdog.

[/ QUOTE ]


Curtains - I am guessing your blitz game is insanely good but isn't it also somewhat rusty?
Would have to think that would give a 1700 at least a slight chance at 3 0.

I would put you as a favorite of course.
But against a 1700 who has been playing every day and considers himself pretty good at blitz I would think that your stretch away from full-time chess would make it a bit closer.