Level of play at 1800-1900

@oldrusty said in #8:
> Dooey? Right, that is the distinction between an 1800-1900 and a 2000 level player. But the question is the variability of play within the 1800-1900 level.

IMHO it's not that difficult to understand:
Based on the FIDE/DWZ/USCF ratings some player show in their profile and based on my own DWZ and experience from my club mates it seems, that you can have a Lichess blitz rating of about 2000 with "only" having a official FIDE/... rating of a wide range from 1100 to 1850.
This means, that 1800-1900 Lichess level players compared are more on the bottom of the spectrum or even lower.

So in the end the players "chess quality" simply can differ from huge to even non existent - you'll (online) almost never really know.

Imagine: 100 ELO difference OTB is really huge! People, if improving fast, usually improve by only 100 points max. a year (of course there are exceptions). Most players improve slower... Compare this to Lichess.

Ppl also easily overlook that there are lots of different factors in the skills and technology involved to play online chess compared to OTB chess, which is an additional factor that differs from player to player and again causes lots of fluctuation in Lichess rating points.

Have fun!

Sometimes you stumble into a line they know very well and know a trick or two.

You might have one good move that is obscure, and all other normal looking moves are bad. So unless you also know the line, you'll more likely play a bad move than the one good move.

It appears they are playing at GM level. And for that 1 particular line, they are. But any other line they will play like an 1800. Or if you survive the opening and can put some pressure on them, they'll play like an 1800 and blunder.

Anyone with common sense, can see beyond, and knows whats really going on.
Period!!!

@oldrusty said in #1:
> I must say, not to be a wet blanket, but the variation of chess skill at the 1800-1900 play is shocking. It's almost as if some AI is trying to compensate for the insanity of online chess. Whatever, but, 3 inaccuracies, in a game with 30+ moves is suspiciously gm at an 1800 level. And, me taking a queen on the 9th move is laughable from someone rated 1850.
>
> I don't trust a thing on this site. None of us should. I wish there was a Turing test for this site.

Hi - I am a solid 1800, both in blitz and bullet. A while ago, my rating in bullet went down to 1650, then it went back up again. Apparently, at one point, it was 1950. This is very much borne out in the games I play. I can play a few games where it seems like I am alright, with only a few mistakes, and I win easily. Then the next game, I am down a couple of pieces and about to get mated within 15 moves, having played terribly.

I reckon it's just dumb luck most (all?) of the time. I probably hang pieces in 75% of my games but then my opponents are equally dumb and only spot the capture 75% of the time. The other day I won a game with checkmate after maybe 25 moves. I looked back and my average centipawn loss was 323. Luckily for me, my opponent was maybe 360, so that explains why I won.

I'm here because I enjoy the game and enjoy playing and watching it, and that's ok for me. Maybe I will reach 2000 one day but I think I'll probably need to play more good moves and fewer bad ones before that's likely to happen.

@stauntonstyle said in #14:
> Anyone with common sense, can see beyond, and knows whats really going on.
> Period!!!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

Yeah, chess gangsters, you can't run you can't hide,
All you want is that "rating ride", coz you wanna be someone....

@h2b2 said in #16:
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

Ok now, so when Christopher Columbus saw the curvature on the horizon, they speculated, and what was the outcome?
Was that just a thought without good reasoning?

sigh

@stauntonstyle said in #18:
> Ok now, so when Christopher Columbus saw the curvature on the horizon, they speculated, and what was the outcome?
> Was that just a thought without good reasoning?

no idea.

I'm not saying what you believe is right or wrong, I'm saying your argument is a logical fallacy. Which I also do all time without noticing.

Check this game of mine. lichess.org/FFeqWq3s/white#15 I checkmated in 8 moves using 12 seconds. This thread suggests I must be cheating as no 1500 rated player can do that. right? feel free to report me for cheating. Not only did I not cheat, I have never cheated.