PDA

View Full Version : stupidest chess advice



qpawn
05-05-2007, 07:45 PM
What is the stupidest chess advice that a player of master level has written down?

My entry is:

"Pawn takes pawn is never a fair exchange".

The culprit? William Hartson in "better chess".

I mean, what about the excahnge of pawns to get into the Queen's Gambit exchange variation for a start, and the minority attack that it offers the positionally adroit white player? Not to mention the panov attack, once thought to be a refutation of the caro kann, and the excahnges in the benoni.

Hartson is a complete, total and utter idiot to concoct the sort of trash as above. But I am sure that someone can better his idiocy...I shudder to think.

:eek:

Bill Gletsos
05-05-2007, 07:54 PM
Hartson is a complete, total and utter idiot to concoct the sort of trash as above. But I am sure that someone can better his idiocyYes, you just did.

In fact you have done it numerous times on this board. :owned:

qpawn
05-05-2007, 08:02 PM
I made a perfectly reasonable comment. I borrowed the book today from my library. I have it in my hand right now: ISBN 978 0 340 92731 1

Hartson's stupidity. qouted by me, is on page 32.

So there now, I have supported myself with evidence.

Today, out of interest, I looked up Bill Gletsos' chess rating, or tried to. I couldn't find one. But in any case, it will be safe to say that if I play you in correspondence chess I will smash you; I am holding my own in the Vic champs against far stronger players than your good self.

So my current conclusion until Bill proves otherwise: he is an unrated player.

Aaron Guthrie
05-05-2007, 08:07 PM
Today, out of interest, I looked up Bill Gletsos' chess rating, or tried to. I couldn't find one. But in any case, it will be safe to say that if I play you in correspondence chess I will smash you; I am holding my own in the Vic champs against far stronger players than your good self.

So my current conclusion until Bill proves otherwise: he is an unrated player.So I guess Hartston could refute you by comparing his rating to yours then.

ETA- his name is Hartston, not Hartson

Kevin Bonham
05-05-2007, 08:18 PM
So my current conclusion until Bill proves otherwise: he is an unrated player.

I don't suppose it occurred to you to try the master list before posting that? :rolleyes:

Maybe to support your claim about Hartston you should explain the context of his comment. I don't have the book and certainly can't tell what Hartston meant from the quote alone - maybe you should give some of the surrounding text as well?

Rincewind
05-05-2007, 08:52 PM
One obvious possible intention is that PxP always involves pawns on different files. This is a consequence of the mechanics of their capture and means that the exchange is never "equal". Whether it is fair or not is a matter for more discussion.

Note I don;t have the book either so I'm doinga good deal of guessing frmo he short quote provided above.

Bill Gletsos
05-05-2007, 09:12 PM
Today, out of interest, I looked up Bill Gletsos' chess rating, or tried to. I couldn't find one.That just shows your total ineptness. :hand:

I am listed on the ACF ratings page in the March 2007 active list and of course am listed there also on the ACF master file.


So my current conclusion until Bill proves otherwise: he is an unrated player.You are just so utterly clueless.

Bill Gletsos
05-05-2007, 09:16 PM
I made a perfectly reasonable comment. I borrowed the book today from my library. I have it in my hand right now: ISBN 978 0 340 92731 1

Hartson's stupidity. qouted by me, is on page 32.More likely is that the significance of his quote just escaped your comprehension.

Bill Gletsos
05-05-2007, 09:26 PM
From the CCLA rating list on their website:

Thornton A.J. 1582

Kevin Bonham
05-05-2007, 10:34 PM
That just shows your total ineptness. :hand:

I agree. If you'd only been on the master list it would have been vaguely excusable but not being able to find it on the active list is remarkably incompetent.

Spiny Norman
06-05-2007, 08:47 AM
Hartson's stupidity. qouted by me, is on page 32.
Hartston is a quite sound teacher and master-level player. So please excuse me if I take his word over yours.

When teaching a young child how to play chess, you might teach them that a pawn is worth 1 point, a knight or bishop 3 points, and so on. This is a very useful approximation and helps stop them making stupid exchanges (e.g. rook for bishop) where there is no compensation.

But we have (all?) grown up a little since our childhood, and whilst the useful approximation of assigning points to pieces is still a helpful tool for quick calculation, what's far more important is to understand relative strength based on the positional demands of the board.

No piece or pawn is "equal" to any other piece or pawn on the board ... they are all different and ought to be treated as such. Often one is able to swap one for another, but its important to get your head around the fact that each time you do, there are trade-offs.

Master level players understand these trade-offs much better than ordinary club-level players like me. I too have played games against guys rated 500+ points above me ... invariably (!), even when I am able to hold my own tactically through a middle game, they almost always end up in the endgame with a positional advantage that is sufficient to force a win. I've seen this over and over. That's why I am now spending heaps of time trying to get my head around various positional themes. Take the following game as an example, which I am part way through ... I'm playing White:

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Nc3 Nc6 5.d4 Bg7 6.d5 Ne5 7.d6 Nxf3+ 8.Qxf3 cxd6 9.h4 h6 10.Bc4 Ne7 11.hxg5 hxg5 12.Rxh8+ Bxh8 13.Bd2 Bf6 14.0-0-0

I am two pawns down ... but I think I am probably winning, because Black's structure is all over the shop and I should be able to pick up his pawns and generate an attack on his king fairly easily from here. In particular, note my 7th move ( a positional pawn sac), and note the difference between Black's white-square bishop (blocked in my its own pawns) and mine (zeroing in on f7).

If you think pieces are of equal value, then I challenge you to take off those bishops and then play the position from there and see how much harder it is for White to make progress.


But in any case, it will be safe to say that if I play you in correspondence chess I will smash you; I am holding my own in the Vic champs against far stronger players than your good self.
How far through the games are you? I expect you'll find, as I do, that even in correspondence play, they are thinking far more deeply than you are about all sorts of factors such as piece activity, pawn structures, control or space, and so on ... so lets see for how long you can hold your own eh? As I said above, its easier in the middlegame than in the endgame.

WhiteElephant
06-05-2007, 08:47 AM
"Pawn takes pawn is never a fair exchange".

The culprit? William Hartson in "better chess".

I mean, what about the excahnge of pawns to get into the Queen's Gambit exchange variation for a start, and the minority attack that it offers the positionally adroit white player? Not to mention the panov attack, once thought to be a refutation of the caro kann, and the excahnges in the benoni.


LOL! I think your examples actually support Hartston's assertion.

Desmond
06-05-2007, 09:02 AM
Another point is that pawns are worth more to the player who is trying to win. There are plenty of examples where an ending is very nearly won, but the defender can just hang on for a draw. Then you add a couple of pawns on the other side of the board, say on a4 & a5 when the original position was all on the kingside, and the win is trivial.

Aaron Guthrie
06-05-2007, 12:28 PM
A beginner mistake might be to assume that a pawn exchange, as it is pawn for pawn, point for point, will keep the position equal (or whatever it was). But the pawn exchange will change the nature of the position. Without context I guess this is what Hartston was trying to point out.

qpawn
06-05-2007, 12:35 PM
Yes, I am 1582 in postchess. BUT we get to the issue of trends; I have gone up 100 points in about 6 months. Hence I clearly began with a rating that was inaccurate. Quite frankly, I would put the standard of my play at about 1900 to 2000 in CC; I am not quite at master level but I am not that far off it. I know what I need to do to get there. Clearly I am not going to reveal that here.

I a very thoughtful correspondence p-layer. I write down all my thoughts, plans etc and take into account short, medium and long-term factors. I aim to understand chess at all times; I am not an opening novelty factory that sets out to bamboozle the opponent with the 23rd move of the King's gambit, unlike some other correspondence players we could mention :)

By the way Hartston has a history of silliness. He once dismisssed the Dutch defence in a sentence as being a disaster, in a book on openings he wrote in the 80s.

Everyone on this thread apart from Rincewind should be ashamed of themselves. You all represent the culture of puerile, adolescent nastiness that has led to me becoming a correspondence player only.

ElevatorEscapee
06-05-2007, 12:42 PM
More advice from Mr Hartston:

"On the conclusion of the game, the winner should compliment the loser on his high standard of play as exemplified by some, if not the majority, of his moves. The victor should also proffer helpful advice to aid the further study of his defeated adversarythereby leading to an eventual improvement in his game. Magnanimity in victory should always extend to drawing the attention of the vanquished to his every error, however trivial, that he might better extirpate them from his future excursions in the chess arena."

Hartston, 1995. Soft Pawn, the uncensored sequel to how to cheat at chess, Cadogan, London.

[Edit: - qpawn got his post in ahead of me. I would just like to include myself as applying to the "peurile adolescent nastiness" comment. In fact I am one of this board's leading examples, I would rate myself at 3000-4000 on the puerile adolescent nastiness scale... :P PS qpawn, would you please read through Frosty's contribution (which I consider to be quite splendid by the way) and identify what you consider peurile, nasty or adoloscent about it? ]

WhiteElephant
06-05-2007, 12:45 PM
Mwahahaha this is just too much :)


Yes, I am 1582 in postchess. BUT we get to the issue of trends; I have gone up 100 points in about 6 months. Hence I clearly began with a rating that was inaccurate.

Could it be that you improved?


Quite frankly, I would put the standard of my play at about 1900 to 2000 in CC; I am not quite at master level but I am not that far off it. I know what I need to do to get there. Clearly I am not going to reveal that here.

Shhh. Don't let all the IMs and FMs who post here know your secret.


I a very thoughtful correspondence p-layer. I write down all my thoughts, plans etc and take into account short, medium and long-term factors. I aim to understand chess at all times; I am not an opening novelty factory that sets out to bamboozle the opponent with the 23rd move of the King's gambit, unlike some other correspondence players we could mention :)

I suppose they are the ones who were 'lucky' when they beat you. Come on, name some if you dare!


By the way Hartston has a history of silliness. He once dismisssed the Dutch defence in a sentence as being a disaster, in a book on openings he wrote in the 80s.

You should log into ICC and join all those US teenagers who continually take swipes at Kramnik, etc during their games.


Everyone on this thread apart from Rincewind should be ashamed of themselves. You all represent the culture of puerile, adolescent nastiness that has led to me becoming a correspondence player only.

qpawn, we miss you in tournament chess, please come back so you can dazzle us with your 1900-2000 rating.

WhiteElephant
06-05-2007, 12:46 PM
More advice from Mr Hartston:

"On the conclusion of the game, the winner should compliment the loser on his high standard of play as exemplified by some, if not the majority, of his moves. The victor should also proffer helpful advice to aid the further study of his defeated adversarythereby leading to an eventual improvement in his game. Magnanimity in victory should always extend to drawing the attention of the vanquished to his every error, however trivial, that he might better extirpate them from his future excursions in the chess arena."

Hartston, 1995. Soft Pawn, the uncensored sequel to how to cheat at chess, Cadogan, London.

:)

Basil
06-05-2007, 12:57 PM
In another work, Hartston notes that a q-pawn can be worthless. Is that the reason for your angst?

MichaelBaron
06-05-2007, 01:52 PM
Today, out of interest, I looked up Bill Gletsos' chess rating, or tried to. I couldn't find one. But in any case, it will be safe to say that if I play you in correspondence chess I will smash you; I am holding my own in the Vic champs against far stronger players than your good self.

So my current conclusion until Bill proves otherwise: he is an unrated player.
LOL

When is "QPawn's best games" book going to be published?

MichaelBaron
06-05-2007, 01:56 PM
I believe i have seen QPawn play at Elwood CC...it was him i saw...then his chess is cr...ap. In fact, if it was him, he is not even 1200...so my money is on Bill...

I am still more than happy to play QPawn OTB where he gets 6 hours and i get half-an-hour for the whole game. Lets make it face to face though rather than correspondence and test his "art of analysis":owned:

qpawn
06-05-2007, 04:10 PM
Michael, I agree with you that I am not good at playing crossboard chess.

I am a pretty introverted guy who likes to stay up till the early hours beavering away at my beloved correspondence games. That's the difference.

I don't hesitate to say that there are many correspondence players like Runting and Guy West who would probably beat me in correspondence chess. I am not up to their standard now; but I will be.

By the way I am coaching one of my beaten correspondence chess opponents. Unlike people of Michael Baron's dismissive and disparaging ilk, that person will get something of benefit from me.

qpawn
06-05-2007, 04:15 PM
I am willing to play Michael Baron on the following terms:

[1] He joins the CCLA
[2] I play him in a friendly game by post or email.

Normal CCLA rules. No computer engines, but unlimited access to databases, mags etc.

If I am as deficient a player as you suggest, Michael, then it shouldn't make any difference what the format; you should beat me easily! You shouldn't even need to take adavantage of the facility in postchess to moves pieces around, but of course you would be within your rights to do so.

Kevin Bonham
06-05-2007, 04:28 PM
Yes, I am 1582 in postchess. BUT we get to the issue of trends; I have gone up 100 points in about 6 months.

Matthew Sweeney tried to outguess the rating system using trending once. You can read about how successful he was here (http://www.chesskit.com/auschess/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=auschess;action=display;num=10706229 81).


Quite frankly, I would put the standard of my play at about 1900 to 2000 in CC; I am not quite at master level but I am not that far off it. I know what I need to do to get there. Clearly I am not going to reveal that here.

I couldn't care less what you would put your standard of play at; I'd be interested in what a CCGM would put it at, or failing that a rating system. As far as I am concerned you are not significantly stronger than your rating in the absence of proof otherwise.


I a very thoughtful correspondence p-layer. I write down all my thoughts, plans etc and take into account short, medium and long-term factors. I aim to understand chess at all times; I am not an opening novelty factory that sets out to bamboozle the opponent with the 23rd move of the King's gambit, unlike some other correspondence players we could mention :)

If you want us to take this alleged deep understanding seriously feel free to demonstrate it by posting an annotated full game you have played.


By the way Hartston has a history of silliness. He once dismisssed the Dutch defence in a sentence as being a disaster, in a book on openings he wrote in the 80s.

He wasn't alone in this view. :lol:


Everyone on this thread apart from Rincewind should be ashamed of themselves. You all represent the culture of puerile, adolescent nastiness that has led to me becoming a correspondence player only.

:lol:

You've come back here (why?) and immediately started mouthing off at Hartston, a far better chess player (and writer - what's more, he was actually funny!) than you will ever be. You won't even quote his context so we can't see if there is a grain of sense in your attack or if you are just being a legend in your own lunchbox as normal. You accuse Bill Gletsos of being unrated when he isn't and then don't even admit that you were wrong. Under these circumstances you have to expect a bit of return fire; will we get another entertaining sook attack in response?

qpawn
06-05-2007, 04:52 PM
Context?

Hartston used the wo0rd "never" in his axiom.

Big word that. What my English teacher called a sweeping statement.

Denis_Jessop
06-05-2007, 05:20 PM
Hartston is a quite sound teacher and master-level player.

He is indeed. He was most active in the era just before the UK GM explosion and was being mentioned as possibly to be the UK's first GM. He gave up chess playing years ago and is a Psychology lecturer , so I believe. His current FIDE Rating rating is 2430 and he is an IM. He either is, or will be, 60 this year. He also has a fair sense of humour and the absurd hence his "How to Cheat at Chess" and "Soft Pawn" as well as several non-chess books in like vein. Thus I think the context of his quoted remark is essential if we are to assess it.

DJ

PS Despite several laudable theories in HCC, he didn't as far as I recall, put forward my favourite, namely that left-handed players favour Q Pawn openings with White. :rolleyes: BTW - I am left-handed and I do: QED.

Kevin Bonham
06-05-2007, 06:06 PM
Context?

Hartston used the wo0rd "never" in his axiom.

Did he explain what he meant by the phrase?


Big word that. What my English teacher called a sweeping statement.

Sure, and I am normally the first to object to generalisations that do not hold true in absolutely all cases. But sometimes sweeping statements can be made in such a stylised or semi-whimsical way that very few readers will take them too literally.

MichaelBaron
06-05-2007, 08:35 PM
I am willing to play Michael Baron on the following terms:

[1] He joins the CCLA
[2] I play him in a friendly game by post or email.

Normal CCLA rules. No computer engines, but unlimited access to databases, mags etc.

If I am as deficient a player as you suggest, Michael, then it shouldn't make any difference what the format; you should beat me easily! You shouldn't even need to take adavantage of the facility in postchess to moves pieces around, but of course you would be within your rights to do so.

I have no time nor desire to spend hours analysing with Fritz and Rybka. However OTB with 5-6 hours you should have enough skill to play 1500 at least if you are a good correspondence player. Or Yes, i will also let you to move pieces on the board while analysing :)
how much more handicap do you want?

MichaelBaron
06-05-2007, 08:45 PM
[QUOTE=Denis_Jessop]He is indeed. He was most active in the era just before the UK GM explosion and was being mentioned as possibly to be the UK's first GM. He gave up chess playing years ago and is a Psychology lecturer , so I believe. His current FIDE Rating rating is 2430 and he is an IM. He either is, or will be, 60 this year. He also has a fair sense of humour and the absurd hence his "How to Cheat at Chess" and "Soft Pawn" as well as several non-chess books in like vein. Thus I think the context of his quoted remark is essential if we are to assess it.

QUOTE]

Just a little bit more about Hartston. He was ranked number 77 in the world in 1973. Also he was consistently in the world top 100 between 1973 and 1978. The only reasons that he never became a GM are that (as correctly pointed out by Dennis) he focused on activities other than chess and b) in the 70's the GM title was hard to get.

qpawn
06-05-2007, 09:02 PM
First, Michael, your assertion that a strong correspondence player should be able to play crossboard at 1500 ELO is totally flawed. One, there was a champion of Australian correspondence chess, Silva, who won the oz CC champs in the 1990s. When interviewed in the record he said that he could not play crossboard chess without blundering and was absolitely hopeless. Two, your argument is quite deceitful and I think you know it; the cognitive demands of crossboard chess, in their visual and imaginative aspects, are very different from those of CC, let alone the psychological factors of having a time limit at all.

Second, your statement about not having time to analyse for ages with an engine has already been answered by me; under CCLA rules there are no engines allowed. Under ICCF rules an engine is allowed but I do not play any games under their auspices. Indeed, I never will, for I see such an amalgam of chess and computer engineering as being factitious pseudo-chess.

But my offer will always be open if you ever play under the CCLA umbrella.

Desmond
06-05-2007, 09:07 PM
qpawn, if u can't see it in 6 hours, u just can't see it.

Rincewind
06-05-2007, 09:17 PM
First, Michael, your assertion that a strong correspondence player should be able to play crossboard at 1500 ELO is totally flawed. One, there was a champion of Australian correspondence chess, Silva, who won the oz CC champs in the 1990s. When interviewed in the record he said that he could not play crossboard chess without blundering and was absolitely hopeless.

I've heard the same argument used by a former NSW player with the same first name. He was rated around 1500 OTB but when he played online he was significantly stronger. He even had some draws and wins against FIDE titled GMs in the internet world championship qualification tournament. So maybe there is something in that.

Garvinator
06-05-2007, 09:42 PM
In another work, Hartston notes that a q-pawn can be worthless. Is that the reason for your angst?
This must go in classic posts :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Bill Gletsos
06-05-2007, 10:08 PM
First, Michael, your assertion that a strong correspondence player should be able to play crossboard at 1500 ELO is totally flawed. One, there was a champion of Australian correspondence chess, Silva, who won the oz CC champs in the 1990s. When interviewed in the record he said that he could not play crossboard chess without blundering and was absolitely hopeless.Actually Jose Silva was asked:

Have you ever played cross-board chess?
His response was:

At school. I'm hopeless at crossboard. I need at least 3 hours per game.
Now Jose was born in 1957 and started playing CC in the early 80's.

This means he was at least 23 when he started playing CC.

One suspects that by 1993 when he won the Australian Correspondence Championship that if he did indeed resume crossboard play that it would most likely be far different from the hoplessness of his school days.

MichaelBaron
06-05-2007, 10:51 PM
Actually Jose Silva was asked:

His response was:

Now Jose was born in 1957 and started playing CC in the early 80's.

This means he was at least 23 when he started playing CC.

One suspects that by 1993 when he won the Australian Correspondence Championship that if he did indeed resume crossboard play that it would most likely be far different from the hoplessness of his school days.

Just because he was asserting himself as "hopeless" it does not mean he was that bad. I do regard myself as "hopeless" since i never really became a Master. Few weeks ago at MCC i was talking to someone and he was complaining he is hopeless since he is only 1700..its all relative i guess..
May be Jose can play Ok OTB

Bill Gletsos
06-05-2007, 11:45 PM
Just because he was asserting himself as "hopeless" it does not mean he was that bad.That was my point.

Kevin Bonham
06-05-2007, 11:50 PM
This must go in classic posts :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

as must #32. Very nicely understated.

qpawn
07-05-2007, 12:26 AM
I have tried to extract some intelligence out of p-eople on this thread. Maybe Rince wind is the only example of any success on my part.

My chess:
worst is crossboard in person - get stage fright.
internet chess - a bit better . I even won a blitz tournamnt a few months ago and I am a slow player.
correspondence chess - a bit better than above.

My argument, ina nutshell, to say that some people can be woeful at crossboard chess but better at correspondence events, is that someone's rainy afternoons spent reading lots of chessbooks can come to some use :)

I will add that when I lost games crossboard I knew what I had done wrong before the game ended; I did understand something :D

Desmond
07-05-2007, 08:01 AM
qpawn, you might have gotten some sympathy if people were just ripping you up because of your rating. But, you were the one to bring up ratings in the first place!

Most (all?) of the higher rated players here are willing to help, give advice etc if you don't behave like such an arrogant fool.

Spiny Norman
07-05-2007, 11:57 AM
Everyone on this thread apart from Rincewind should be ashamed of themselves. You all represent the culture of puerile, adolescent nastiness that has led to me becoming a correspondence player only.
If you are going to keep bobbing up with a target painted on you, you've got to expect that some people are going to be tempted to take aim.

Watto
07-05-2007, 01:22 PM
How far through the games are you? I expect you'll find, as I do, that even in correspondence play, they are thinking far more deeply than you are about all sorts of factors such as piece activity, pawn structures, control or space, and so on ... so lets see for how long you can hold your own eh? As I said above, its easier in the middlegame than in the endgame.
Yes, along with subtle positional considerations, master players are often thinking about a remarkable number of tactical variations in any given position. Quite often if I’ve found the best move, I’ve seen nowhere near all the reasons why it’s so good (or necessary). Once you’ve looked at a few games with master players, you know just how much you’re missing. Oceans of information...

As the game progresses, the much weaker player’s inability to calculate or see as deeply or accurately, their lack of knowledge and lack of familiarity with all sorts of themes almost inevitably will lead to the gradual or sudden disintegration of their position. C’est la vie. No point in getting one’s ego damaged by it or being in denial about the true state of affairs. So the weaker player just has to work at their chess, keep improving and let the results speak for themselves. qpawn, I think it was Michael Baron who pointed out to you on some other thread that objectivity was important in chess. Suggesting you’ll smash Bill at CC (correspondence by its very nature makes a player more solid so Bill would have the same advantage you realise… ), or match Nakamura in a ‘positional game' as you once did provides great and much needed entertainment but it won't give you the kind of respect I suspect you're looking for.

Having said that, I must say that your posts do make for lively and entertaining threads... have to thank you for that! I'm also genuinely pleased that your CC is going well.

pax
07-05-2007, 03:09 PM
I have tried to extract some intelligence out of p-eople on this thread. Maybe Rince wind is the only example of any success on my part.


That whooshing noise is the sound of a joke shooting straight over the top of your head ;)

Garvinator
07-05-2007, 06:07 PM
I would like to put in a new contender for stupidest chess advice. Listening to qpawn.

machomortensen
15-11-2011, 02:19 AM
I'm not in q-pawnleague - at least I think so... - but more than 25 years ago I advised Jacob Aagaard NOT to move so fast...

antichrist
18-01-2012, 12:25 PM
the stupidest question I was ever asked, when using a timber set in teaching, why are the squares yellow and brown and not black and white?

next stupidest question I was asked, by a professional person too, is why do we call (obviously doubled) pawns double pawns? this question was repeated a few weeks later

AlexDavies
01-01-2018, 12:32 PM
Just because he was asserting himself as "hopeless" it does not mean he was that bad. I do regard myself as "hopeless" since i never really became a Master. Few weeks ago at MCC i was talking to someone and he was complaining he is hopeless since he is only 1700..its all relative i guess..
May be Jose can play Ok OTB


Jose Silva is currently 2436 at rapid and 2416 at blitz on lichess.org: https://lichess.org/@/JoseSilva

That's equivalent to about 2272 FIDE according to dudeski_robinson's conversion formula (FIDE Rating = 187 + Lichess Classical Rating X 0.38 + Lichess Blitz Rating X 0.48).

Not too shabby for a 60-year-old, considering that Mirko Rujevic is the top player on the ACF senior list at 2197.

FM_Bill
28-03-2018, 10:02 AM
Not too shabby for a 60-year-old, considering that Mirko Rujevic is the top player on the ACF senior list at 2197.

Not any more.

AlexDavies
29-03-2018, 10:16 AM
Not any more.
And it looks like Mirko's replacement has a 45-point buffer against the next serious entrant (Guy West in September)!

Darryl (turning 60 in February) might be a tougher challenge, however.

MichaelBaron
29-03-2018, 04:14 PM
And it looks like Mirko's replacement has a 45-point buffer against the next serious entrant (Guy West in September)!

Darryl (turning 60 in February) might be a tougher challenge, however.

We should also consider that Mirko is not just over 60 but turning 72 this year. And Doug Hamilton is turning 77 or 78...

Javier Gil
09-04-2018, 03:08 AM
My take: Willy Hendriksī"Move first, think later" (the book title).
Sure, I know it's a pretty good book, thought provoking, fantastic selection of positions and really good practical advice. But if you're a coach and you've got a class full of people, when you tell them to think before they move, there will always be someone who's read about this book and challenge your advice!

antichrist
09-04-2018, 10:14 AM
My take: Willy Hendriksī"Move first, think later" (the book title).
Sure, I know it's a pretty good book, though provoking, fantastic selection of positions and really good practical advice. But if you're a coach and you've got a class full of people, when you tell them to think before they move, there will always be someone who's read about this book and challenge your advice!

When teaching I would draw the analogy with marriage - marry in haste and regret in leisure