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

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm good and fast at blitz and not really that rusty. Blitz is easy to stay in top form at, because the openings matter a lot less than they do at regular chess. You can get some garbage opening but win anyway through some tricks or by winning on time.

Trust me against a regular 1700 who wasn't a blitz specialist, I would win extremely easily in a long match, most of the time winning on time or by tricking them somehow.

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]

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."

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not fair, and I think you know it. I have tilted in chess the way I have tilted in poker, and have gotten so frustrated at my play that I'd go off on an idiot-bender and knock my rating down two or three hundred points. I'm sure others have had the same experience. I've also had stretches where I just sit down to play to blow off steam, but I've had others where I take it semi-seriously and have read books, studied games when I was through, ran some stuff through Fritz, etc. When I was taking the game semi-seriously, I was a 1800 player on ICC -- when I was logging in to donk away some time, I was in the 1500-1700 range. (Again, I'm not equating these ratings with USCF ratings.)


The equivalent of "when I'm not striking out I'm a .650 hitter" in poker would be "when I'm hitting the flop I am a fantastic player", and that's not the kind of thing I meant to imply at all.

[MicroBob]

I really do think it's fair actually.

Your rating IS your rating.

I'll use another analogy though:

"I have tilted in chess the way I have tilted in poker, and have gotten so frustrated at my play that I'd go off on an idiot-bender and knock my rating down two or three hundred points."

This sounds to me much more like:

"My win-rate in pokertracker is 0.2BB/100, but when I'm actually taking the game seriously and not tilting I'm probably about 3BB/100."


I mean, if you're so bored with chess while you're playing that you are REALLY screwing around and practically trying to do damage to your rating then I guess your statement can make sense.

But it really sounds like you perhaps justify some of your losses by saying, "Well, I was kind of screwing around on that one. I totally would beat that guy if I actually felt like concentrating."

I also suppose that if you are taking the game 100% seriously but are limiting yourself to only a certain opening which you are really unfamiliar with then I guess I can see how your actual rating would not be reflective of your true strength.

But chess has so many 1400-ish players who say, "Yeah, but there were some really bad games in there. I'm really more of a 1700 type player" as well as the 1700-ish player who say they are really about 2000 strength.
And we're talking about ONLY their USCF ratings.

It's like a big joke.
Like all the prisoners in Shawshank who say, "everyone's innocent in here."
Except that it's all the 1400's saying, "but all the 1400's here are actually 1700 strength."

Well, if all these guys REALLY were 1700 strength players then their USCF rating would actually be 1700.

[MicroBob]

I've actually heard players recap their tourneys by saying something like this:

"My rating is 1400 but I usually play more like a 1600."

"my first opponent was rated 1220. He actually played more like a 1600 though. He beat me. I made a bad mistake."

"my next opponent was rated 1100. He actually played more like a 1400 though. I won that game."

"my next opponent was rated 1300. He played more like a 1500 though. We drew."

"So if you consider how good these players REALLY are I actually lost to a 1600, beat a 1400, and drew a 1500. Yet my rating is going to go down now because every single one of my opponents was under-rated just like me. It sucks!!"

on and on and on.

EVERYONE'S rating somehow is lower than what it should be?
Logically something just doesn't add up in there.

[disjunction]

Some players rarely have the "wrong" result against other players who are rated much higher or lower. Others do.

It has nothing to do with misrepresenting the strength of your opponent.

[MicroBob]

But how many players actually do this the other way?

After playing an 1800 they actually say, "but he was really more like a 1500-type player."

This just doesn't seem to happen nearly as frequently.

Beat an 1800 = "Hey, this guy was a real 1800!"
Lose to a 1400 = "But he plays more like a 1700. That's why he beat me."

Many players over-estimate their own playing strength and do the same for their opponents to justify their belief that they are stronger than their rating indicates.

[disjunction]

The 1800's I beat were really 1800's, dammit! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

(haha no they weren't)

I know what you mean, unlucky opponent matchups in chess are the equivalent of how every poker player has bad luck. I'm just willing to give Grisgra the benefit of the doubt because I used to be a fan of his old poker posts, and judging by those, I'm sure he could attain the rating he quoted if he were consistent about his play.

[MicroBob]

I'm a fan too.
And I'm sure he could achieve such a rating also.
But I also think a lot of us COULD attain a higher rating IF we were consistent about our play.

I feel that when I'm really on my game and have been studying more and playing a ton (and productively) I'm in the 1600-1700 range.

Like others, I have had opponents tell me, "Man, you sure are deceivingly strong for your rating" after beating a 1650 or something.
I got my ICC rating up to 1730 or so before similarly donking some of it away playing another long, late-night, blurry-eyed session.

Same goes for my USCF rating. It would be on the way up.
But then I show up for some Saturday tournament at 9am on only 3 hours sleep and lose my first 2 or 3 games partly because I just wasn't rested or focused.

But my rating is my rating. Including all the losses when I was less-interested or goofing-off or really tired.

I too have occasionally been guilty of some of the, "My rating is XXXX but I'm really much stronger than that."

But at least I'm quickly aware of how much I am just sounding like everyone else and how ridiculous the excuses for my lower-than-my-real-strength rating are!!
Thus I conclude I'm not quite as bad as some others about this sort of ego-boost exaggerated-ratings-inflation sort of thing because I only do it part-time!! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]
I really do think it's fair actually.

Your rating IS your rating.

I'll use another analogy though:

"I have tilted in chess the way I have tilted in poker, and have gotten so frustrated at my play that I'd go off on an idiot-bender and knock my rating down two or three hundred points."

This sounds to me much more like:

"My win-rate in pokertracker is 0.2BB/100, but when I'm actually taking the game seriously and not tilting I'm probably about 3BB/100."


I mean, if you're so bored with chess while you're playing that you are REALLY screwing around and practically trying to do damage to your rating then I guess your statement can make sense.

But it really sounds like you perhaps justify some of your losses by saying, "Well, I was kind of screwing around on that one. I totally would beat that guy if I actually felt like concentrating."

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I guess we can just agree to disagree. Because I haven't played chess at all, semi-seriously or not, for years, I really don't have much of a dog in this fight [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. I kinda agree with what you're getting at re tilt, but there's still a non-trivial distinction between a chess-for-fun mindset vs chess-for-blood, between sitting down to play casually and actually bringing out the books and reviewing openings, etc.

I don't think it's a cop-out to say that when I was actively studying my game, I was ~1800 (on ICC), but when I wasn't, I was rated lower. I mean, we're talking stretches of weeks or maybe a couple months at a time where by actual rating, across all games, was bouncing around 1800, because I was in donk-free mode -- it wasn't a stream of days of "well, of the seven games I played today, except for that last game and that game an hour ago, I played 1800 chess".

On your last note, in general I have no problem with a statement like "I'm a better poker player than it looks" if it's actually true. Practically speaking it's kinda useless to be a good player who just plays bad most of the time, but there's a qualitative difference between a pro sitting down at a low-limit table and donking money away and a novice who couldn't step up his game if he tried.

Their money, of course, spends the same, which I think is your point [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[BPF]

If Durr wants to repeat his wagers, and get more odds, let me know [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

When I was 1700, I *knew* nobody could give me 5-1 time odds. Now that I am 2600, I am not so sure!

Generally, when someone is 700+ points stronger, almost any odds can be given.

BPF