Subject: No offence taken, Sharon, and no bullshit to put away...
The more information you furnish, the more accurately I can estimate your firm playing strength. I, too, am making conversation. My major clue up to this particular post is derived from your statement regarding mating opponents in 3 or 4 moves. Such mates can only be effected against complete amateurs, except perhaps for the rare high-level slip or the insouciant opponent.
As for increasing one's playing strength ten-fold, that would be measured as a 670 point increase on that 3,000-point ELO scale. A 10× skill improvement would be a little over 3 norms. Depending on where your skill level was when you began this increase, it could have greater and then even greater meaning. For example, if you started out as a 1500 like me and then managed to ascend to a 2170 level, you would be almost a chess master and your ascent would have been much more trying than what transpired in my case. I started as an 1100 and crept up to 1516 after five years of fairly depthful devotion. That's only a 400-point, 2-norm advance, indicating that I have increased my strength 6-fold.
I would not presume to dictate your chess strength to you, but offered examples of an obvious hypothetical nature. As you say, it is impossible for me to rationally rate you without specific information. If you yourself had that specific information at your avail, you would already know your rating because it is that information that constitutes the formulaic elements employed to calculate that number. If you do know your rating (in the regular game - derivative chess games are of little consequence to me), I would surely be interested in knowing what it is.
I haven't offered any "*@#*" in these chess-related posts, but I have provided much relevant information that contributes to an understanding of the remarkable multi-plateau range of skill levels implicit in the ELO scale. When I speak of ratings I refer to the specific numbers familiar to rated players. I make no general references to how my opponents appraise my skill or to any success history that exists outside the ELO system. When I do refer to playing strength outside the ELO system I apply, insofar as possible, ELO parameters to my evaluations, and by coupling that with extensive playing experience both in and out of rated venues, I can generally position players on the ELO scale within 100 points. I can imagine one probable method of estimating the rating of an unrated player without actually playing in rated venues. You would have to play, say, at least 30 but preferably between 50 and 100 games with a mid-level rated player such as myself. Then, your win-draw-loss statistics could be compared to your opponent's known skill level. This would probably be accurate within 50-75 points. Short of some sort of deliberate organized attempt to make that determination, estimates must be qualified as guesstimates, even if they come from someone with a foundation in science. Knowing how many games one has won or lost against opponents whose own playing strength is unmeasured cannot be expected to produce the needed information. It is not the number of wins versus losses assessed in a vacuum, but the combination of that data coupled with the known strength of each of the opponents that furnishes the basis for computation.
I once designed a chess variant called CUBE CHESS, which has for its playing field eight boards stacked. Increasing the number of squares without adding proportional numbers of pieces didn't produce much more than a long, boring, and in the absence of an opponent "helpmate", an essentially endless game. Oh, well. Back to the drawing board.
I have a considerable collection of chess variant games, but the ones which I enjoy the most still employ the traditional board and set. Bughouse (aka Siamese Chess aka Madhouse) is my favorite variant. You have to be good at the regular game to excel in Bughouse. Two sets plus two boards plus two clocks plus four players on two teams = chaos!
It all really is just conversation. Look for my future report on whether or not I track down the infamous Jude Acres in New Orleans, and if so just how badly he whips my sorry ass! I tried looking up his rating but he has been playing street chess for the last three decades instead of rated tournament games. Probably pays better. Some norms are predicated on how many games one has played without dropping below a certain rating "floor". I think Jude Acres may be a National Master, meaning that he may be 2400 or higher. Enough to inflict severe pain.
|
|
|
