What's The Most Fun Chess Program Out There These Days

[Scott Tortorice]

Most of my games have been won or lost because of one side getting a piece or two up. But these three games have really been the first time i've seen very small advantages end up being huge in the end game.

I thought this was apropos:

At a lecture that he gave in 1990 at the first session of the Yusupov-Dvoretsky school for gifted young chess players, master Alexei Kosikov wisely remarked that "any exchange in a chess game is a kind of business deal. You offer your product, you're offered something else, and each side tries to extract some kind of benefit from that." This is worth repeating often in order to carry out the exchange in the most favorable way for you.

 

[kcdusk]

You've got some time on your hands, do you play a rated game or an unrated game?

I used to always play rated games, you know, for keeps. More games equal more results (one way or the other) and a more accurate rating. Buuuuuuuuuuuuuut, playing a rated game i stick to my normal game plan. So now i'm thinking i need to play some unrated games, so i've got the chance to experiment and try some new things out without piling up the losses if things dont work out.

Do you mix it up (chess wise!)?

 

[peterk1]

I always rate everything.
If you're practicing/training with the computer, it's normal to lose 6-8 games out of 10 so I don't get too attached to the W/L record. As your rating drops, move down to lower opponents and then eventually it starts coming up again after you've mastered or gotten better at whatever you're trying to learn.

 

[kcdusk]

I read today that a "bright begginer" is rated at an ELO of 1,000. Does anyone have any other info that puts ELO ratings into plain english?

 

[Scott Tortorice]

I read today that a "bright begginer" is rated at an ELO of 1,000. Does anyone have any other info that puts ELO ratings into plain english?

That's a good question. I don't think I've ever seen it broken down into plain English. I have pretty much made up my own system when it comes to ratings, based on my experience:

• 2400 and above: World-class Grandmaster (Carlson, Anand, etc.)
• 2200–2399 International Master (i.e., GM in the making)
• 2200–2399: National Master (IM in the making . Also, top level national players)
• 2000–2199: Expert player (very strong pro player approaching the top of their national level)
• 1800–1999: Strong club player
• 1600–1799: Experienced (i.e., battle-tested :bandit club (casual) player
• 1400–1599: Newb player who is making progress
• 1200–1399: Freshly minted chess player (usually, the default ELO is in this range)
• 1000–1199: Newb who has taken some blows

Below 1000 is pretty rare. Usually it involved newbs who have had a run of bad luck.

This is all just rule of thumb stuff. For example, I recently drew with a player rated in the upper 1200s. His play was stronger than his rating indicated.

 

[kcdusk]

Based on that scott, i have a long way to go.

I'd like to aim for 1600 but struggle to beat chessmaster at 1100.

 

[Scott Tortorice]

Based on that scott, i have a long way to go.

I'd like to aim for 1600 but struggle to beat chessmaster at 1100.

Don't judge your strength based on Chessmaster (or any other program) because they always play stronger than a real world human would at a particular level. For example, I don't think I ever beat a CM opponent rated higher than 1400 (which caused me no end of frustration. Eventually I just gave up ). Even more to the point, we've played almost a dozen games and I can assure you that you are clearly much stronger than a real world 1100 rated player. In my august and infallible opinion :whist: you are clearly in the experienced club player category and headed towards the strong club cat with just a few more games (look, you already have me on the ropes in our last game! ).