Part II, The Wealth of Bullets
Scottish Economist Adam Smith wrote his epochal economic treatise "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes and Wealth of Nations" Three Hundred and thirty three years ago, "a clearly written account of political economy at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution and" "widely considered to be the first modern work in the field of economics", but I will resist the temptation to state such grandiose a survey, and narrow it down to a subtitle such as:
An informal survey of localized ratings at ICC class C+/B- players, Fourteen Hundred Bullet at ICC, Part II:
I did some fairly hefty and detailed objective analysis of 50 other bullet players, plus another subsequent related 52 players, totaling 102 ICC players, and report the very interesting results here:
I set up a spread sheet and recorded in detail the results of all the twenty-five bullet chess players ranked proximate and just above me (1402-1406 elo), as well as the twenty-five players proximate and just below me (1402-1400). To sample this not only on one day, but across several days to randomize the data a little bit, I queried the set with the ICC command "rank dk-transform" and recorded it for that day, then in subsequent days, retained the records of those whose ratings were unchanged or were inactive, but then subsequently took careful note of new entrants, and thus in the days ahead took that snapshot several times to get fifty members of my data set. Not the stuff of pure science or allowing heuristical proclamations of averaging all the players in my class, but sufficient to take a very good snap shot of a 1400 bullet ICC chess players performance in other time frames in aggregate.
I not only of course recorded their bullet performance by wins, loses, draws, total games, best performance, but in careful detail their blitz, standard, 5-minute, and 1-minute performance as well--again, in full resolution.
From there I filtered the data via rank-sort so as to eliminate the 15-25% or so who had under-representative activity in each category (depending on what kind of chess it was), so as to get the best quality data set. Since most bullet players tend to also play blitz, this allowed me to establish an average measure of their blitz results among 43 players--or as much as 86% of them--for an average blitz rating of 1580 elo, standard chess play results among 25 players or 50% of them for an average standard rating of 1719 elo, 5 minute play results among 17 players or 34% averaging 1508 elo, and finally 1-minute play results among 19 players or 38% averaging 1058 elo.
Since some player tend to win one, or two, or three, or even play ten 5-minute, or standard, or 1-minute games and attain a perhaps uncharacteristically high posted rating for that category, they tend to thereafter completely discontinue that effort--so as to freeze for all to see their posted out of category result(s)--or alternately abandon the form with a poor result, dating from other years and thereafter remain inactive.
Nevertheless, not everyone does that, so I could establish not only average ratings, but detailed win to total games coefficients for some forty or fifty players, and so also determine the most competitive chess players in total. The idea being that a player 'A' who has won 470, lost 1093, drawn 65 among 1628 total games, and averaging 0.289 wins among all games is faced much stiffer competition than player 'B' who has W411, L269, D17 =697 at 0.590 wins, even if their bullet ratings are identical. Such a combatant is much more willing, by design, to loose many more games, and so is much more battle hardened and tested, in my humble opinion. More often than not player A carries this same tendency over to their blitz, bullet, and even standard games, and is a very interesting pattern to watch.
Along with that, as I was also saying, is that what happens more often than not, is that most instead concentrate all of their efforts upon bullet, blitz, or most likely of all, bullet and blitz in tandem, often resulting in the play of thousands or tens of thousands of games, deepening the solidity of my calculations.
My measures PER PLAYER averaged: 6,012 bullet games, 4,038 blitz, 153 standard, 1,246 5 minute, 6,330 1-minute, totaling an average of 12,873 games per player across the fifty players--of course, some were heavy users with 10,000+ or more blitz and bullet games, and some were new, with low numbers and were excluded to keep integrity of data.
* * *
Thereafter I knew that I had to take the assumed performance relative value of 1580 for blitz and 1719 for standard, to converge the data, and check for backward compatibility--of course, being all but certain to find some surprises in store, up or down!
So I then found the mean 1580 blitz player, using the same fixed window, whereby I then noted new members above and below that level, to sample the 31 blitz players (1580-1581 above, 1580-1579) and their respective bullet, standard, 5 minute, and 1-minute results. This time, I didn’t go through the cumbersome process of noting all wins and loses in detail, but only ratings by category, so as to speed up my query.
I found 15 or 48% bullet players averaging 1361 elo (eliminating the 16 who had insufficiently sizable games to get an accurate reading, et. al.), 16 or 52% standard averaging 1708 elo, 10 or 31% 5-minute at 1380 elo, and finally 7 or 23% 1-minute at 1004 elo.
And to round out my triumphate, of course, I of course also quickly sampled the 21 standard players proximate, above or below an assumed value of 1719 (1719-1722, and 1719-1718). Of course, while many bullet players play what are formally called 'rapid forms', not all standard players play rapids or even like to play any of them, but this is a good double check, since there are also some who play all forms:
I found 4 or 19% bullet averaging 1481 elo, 18 or 86% blitz averaging 1488 elo, 6 or 29% 5 minute averaging 1384 elo, and very lastly 2 or 10% 1-minute averaging 1004.
I know we could go on and on with this analysis, and shave it down, and talk about r-squared, and linear regression, but my main point or two is as follows:
I don't so much need to establish absolute truth, so much as to accurately and objectively survey my peers, and see where I need to be--more or less--in performance in other chess time frames and how I might formulate my goals going forward. I played 1300 bullet games, and am confident of the measure attained since as recently as November alone.
I found that 1402 elo bullet, as I suspected, does equate to a much stronger chess player than seemed proximate 1200 or 1300 blitz, and is often indeed associated with many 1600 and 1700 blitz players (this is an average, so of course does include some 1400 and 1500 blitz, in parity), as does 1580 blitz similarly equate with many 1800 and 1900 standard players (so of course some 1500 and 1600 standard). I found this in play, and now I have proven it. They are there.
With only 0.397% wins, I have had to fight many a ranking player, loosing a great many games 'almost won' but, alas, that is why 'they are' 1500 or 1600 bullet, they have a decisive edge, and can usually outfox you even under the burden or weight of their own sometimes not insignificant errors.
I found 1400 bullet much harder to attain than 1530 ICC blitz, and 1700 Yahoo blitz (2/12 or 3/8 as the case may be) and so will now play to get back to 1600 ICC blitz, where I started... but I am actually, I feel, truly stronger now than before so it remains a real open question as to how far I need to go there, to harvest similar partiy of chess skill and knowledge and effort.
Lastly, my honest pride at <40% wins at bullet yet having raised my rating about 22% in two or three months from a level, is as hard to do as I thought, not unprecedented, but difficult: only ten of those fifty had equal or better ratios (meaning lower), but alas, with my recent rate occuring much more like 33% instead of 40%, puts me not over 80% of my fellow bullet combatants, but more like 90%, a trend that I aim to continue.
My ICC blitz rate is now 0.333% in total, and is bettered by only 2 of those 25 members of the fifty, or above 92% of all combatants sampled.
As Dan Heiseman and Bruce Pandolfini both aptly say variously at chessCafe.com, 'try to play two players ranked above you, for every one below you'. I try to ONLY PLAY opponents above me, and at worst, only those ranked very near me if at all. Such a way is hard, but the wins are sweet.
posted by transformation at 8:36 PM
23 Comments:
Nice stats. As to bullet, I think this is a game similar to chess. I wonder if the bullet world champion would be able to win a chess game against any grandmaster. I have my doubts. And of course, I expect any grandmaster to lose in bullet against a simple bullet master.
thank you for your reply and very glad you visited today.
himmmmm? 'similar to chess'??? i get you loud and clear!
many GM's play 3/0 as a way of practicing much chess very rapidly, affording endings and tactics alike, and the way i played bullet (0:4 starts with 12 seconds, so is 3:04 for 43 moves, and MANY of my games exceeded 40 moves), affords ample opportunity for compressed chess experience.
it is important that you understand that i do not mean the 2/0 or 1/0 variety, which i feel is a waste of time. this is increment, if you didnt catch that, and i am GREATLY against what i have many times called the 'silly mouse race', no pun intended.
of course, the bulk of my inquiry is about the statistical or necessary correlation between independent variables. A does not perfectly equate to B, does not equate to C, but they DO relate, and aggregate around a likely average, and this allows me to determine FOR MYSELF what is a reasonable goal as i play the next speed up, blitz at 2/12 or 10:00 for 40 moves.
lastly, most 1402 bullet players are 1580 blitz but not all 1580 blitz are 1402 bullet, but are 1361 bullet. think about that one!
most 1580 blitz are 1708 standard but not all 1720 standard are 1580 blitz, but are 1489 blitz. think about that one!
it is not my place to diminish the accomplishment of standard; but rather to place into focus the performance value of strong fast chess, and how it is expressed at rapid then slower controls.
i did some further calculations now, and my data involves: 69 bullet players, 82 blitz, 59 standard, 33 5-minute, and 21 1-minute combatants. the final averages are, weighted by group [i.e. (1581*24 + 1579*19 + 1580*21 + 1489*18)/82= ] are as follows (similar to a moment of inertia or weighted average, etc):
1398 bullet
1560 blitz
1719 standard
1447 5-minute
1084 1-minute
and is thus much more than a snap shot of bullet players, but necessarily now a snap shot of ALL class C+/B- at ICC at a certain skill level broadly!
That's some interesting data. I'll have to cogitate on it.
I prefer 2/12 much more than 5/0. I can't stand a game where one player wins on time in a dead lost position by simply pushing wood back and forth as fast as they can.
Interesting number crunching David.
I haven't done any formal statistical analysis on USCF ratings correlating to the USCF Quick ratings. I do notice that those with a quick rating on a rough average about 100 points within the standard rating tend to be a solid standard player at that rating. Typically, these are players on the rise. I can only speak of my experience in playing these folks.
Also, in light of the ratings distribution bell curve, I am speaking mostly of Class players in my experience of the 100 point delta between speed and Standard ratings.
I find the experts and above have a rating delta typically within 50 rating points of each other. At Quick ratings, tactical play is everything as opposed to positional and strategic play.
So in these observations, its safe to say experts and above are balanced in both tactical and positional play. While class players desparage is lagging in tactical capabilities. Since most class players have spent hours studying book knowledge and have yet to transcend this in actual tactical execution.
I too think that bullet and chess are different games. This is not to say that one or the other is inferior or undesirable, but that they require quite different skills in different mixes. The skill sets are certainly not orthogonal, but I suspect the overlap in some elements is very low or even zero.
The statistical analysis is quite interesting, with one possible fly in the ointment. I don't know what ICC uses for starting values. FICS uses a different starting ELO value for standard, and that skews the standard ratings to too high a level relative to the others.
For my own preference, as slow time control games on the internet are the exception rather than the rule, I prefer 2/12. At least *some* strategic thinking can take place in a 2/12 game.
to my most esteemed friend bob, aka Chess Relearner, i respectfully submit that 153 games of data per individual on average for standard allows more than enough time to establish a correct rating, as those set too high will surely fall, irregardless of any level of play. it is self correcting, assymtotically.
moreover, i eliminated anyone less than 20 games, and since the average was 150+ games plus, as i said, many were two and three-hundred games, etc.
also, i am not trying to distinguish ALL icc C+/B-, but rather those individuals who on average play bullet and blitz, who in also playing standard, or more combinations in aggregate, express a skill set beyond bullet and blitz. a bit of linguistics, but fair to say.
prototypical advanced bullet player at ICC [with exception of no meaningful 1-minute data], look at these numbers:
just a 'mere' 1182 bullet, and active in ALL these represented categories. who wants to volunter to play THIS guy? i rest my case:
Statistics for MindMaze:
rating
win loss draw total best
----------------------------
Bullet 1182 elo
063 0342 06 =0411 1365 elo
----------------------------
Blitz 1551 elo
554 1406 95 =2055 1688 elo
----------------------------
Standard 2051 elo
494 0606 59 =1159 2051 elo
----------------------------
5-minute 1136 elo
000 001 00 =0001
---------------------------- 1-minute 1424 elo
000 001 00 =0001
now one tiny last detail--notice his win loss ratios.
bullet*** at 15% ??
blitz**** at 27% ??
standard @ 43% ??
does THIS guy know how to compete?
you gonna play 2,000+ blitz games and loose 73% of them? who do you suppose he beats when he wins, and who does the player HE beats beat?
at bullet he only gets worse. you think this game is for nothing, or perhaps the accelerator can get road test without benefit?
then notice his standard rating. these are the kind of guys who kill me unsuspectingly, but, at the same time, i am one of them for yet other unsuspecting chess players. :)
FICS uses a different starting ELO value for standard
no the initial rating is 1720 for all variants at fics.
it's the rating deflation (more popular the variant -> faster deflation) that bends the ratings as we can see from the average ratings at fics:
blitz: mean rating 1381 (15407 players)
standard: mean rating 1592 (3105 players)
lightning: mean rating 1597 (2724 players)
crazyhouse: mean rating 1814 (598 players)
i really want to leave an intelligent comment that might be worthy of this post, but really, all i can come up with is:
i like that black and white picture with the topless girl in it...
*quietly backs away in shame, reeking of stupidity*
I'm not surprised by the result. I always make it a point to check my opponent's standard rating when I play blitz against him. They always have a higher standard rating than blitz rating (which seems to violate mathematics: how can everyone be losing more in blitz than they are in standard? there must be some amazing blitz players who have very high ratings, and also there are many blitz players who have played NO standard games).
And of course blitz isn't bullett of the insane variety you are playing, but the trend is always the same.
Whether the correlation suggests that there is a causal relationship cannot be known from the data. That is, will getting good at bullet cause you to be better at standard? Or vice versa, as people like Heisman have said? My bet is that both influences happen, but that playing too much blitz, and then jumping right into standard games tends to show I have gotten sloppy in my thinking (or, lack of thinking, specifically).
That post was insane, DK. Starting with Adam Smith?! LOL. It seems your data would be easiest to digest in graphical form, and Excel certainly is built for such display. You could also get error bars, which are key (e.g., what is the standard deviation of the rating for each type of chess: is it higher for bullet, lower for standard, as I'd guess?).
It gets more and more interesting. What a great thread this is!
The info provided on FICS is especially fascinating, with average ratings being lower with more popular variants. I too thought it defied logic, then I recalled that FICS ratings, unlike USCF ratings (for established players) are *not* a zero-sum game. FICS uses the Glicko system with an RD that varies with time as well as game count, and that means the number of rating points at stake for each player doesn't have to (and usually won't) sum to zero.
So in general, in the more popular games the players will have lower RDs and the number of points at stake will be, overall, lower. I believe this implies overall lower ratings, but I would have to work it through in more detail. The median rating would be at least as interesting as the mean rating in this population.
I agree with your hypothesis that playing up probably leads to faster improvement than playing those at your own level or below. Heisman and other teachers have said the same for years, and it jives with what most of us have experienced in physical sports.
You've also established that there's a correlation between blitz, standard, bullet, and even 1-minute time controls. It's very interesting to see how standard and blitz ratings compare at your elo level.
I'm not so certain that mastering fast time controls is an efficient way to master chess at standard time controls, unless you're temporarily focusing on only one aspect of your play--such as openings--and then only in moderation. The strong players are always telling us to play more slow games.
Of course, playing fast can be fun, and having fun sometimes trumps training! :)
(i) definitions to help those who do not understand. all unconstructive or antangonistic messages deleted or repeated attempts to engage me from an unequal playing field in one way one communication--i.e. lack of reciprocle access null:
disparage One entry found for disparage.
Main Entry: dis·par·age
Pronunciation: di-'sper-ij, -'spa-rij
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -aged; -ag·ing
Etymology: Middle English, to degrade by marriage below one's class, disparage, from Anglo-French desparager to marry below one's class, from des- dis- + parage equality, lineage, from per peer
1 : to lower in rank or reputation : DEGRADE
2 : to depreciate by indirect means (as invidious comparison) : speak slightingly about
synonym see DECRY
- dis·par·age·ment /-ij-m&nt/ noun
- dis·par·ag·er noun
- dis·par·ag·ing adjective
- dis·par·ag·ing·ly /-ij-i[ng]-lE/ adverb
(ii) to repeat, reread carefully and courteously constructed notes at end of posts from Thursday 21 January 2007 and Sunday 21 January 2007.
(iii) there is no message to say that this is the last message to cD baring demonstration of emotional growth and integration of introjections and self projections from hadred.
(iv) by their fruits you will know them.
"People, I just want to say, you know, can't we all just get along?" -- Rodney King
"Why can't we be friends?" -- War
chessdog - Perhaps the negative things you wrote on CTS makes him suspicious about why you're visiting his blog. At least, I would be.
95.8%: no interest or time or attention for stuff such as this.
if you wish to post comments, then do so from a level playing field: concommitent access to comments back to you (i.e. somehow you get to ask me questions and i am gonna drop what i am doing and pay attention to YOU when you want it, but i cannot do the same to you or with you in return??), unconditionally constructive, no deprication or backbiting or negitive tit for tat to me or anyone else at CTS, and lastly, dont judge what you dont know.
i dont try to sit and judge and evaluate or backbite or try to access 1900 elo players, and you cannot judge or compare yourself to me. 9,000 tries to start at 1460 at 79%- to start is altogether different than another 15,000 tries at 1500 at 88%+, and then finally now 3,000 tries at 92%++ at 1450-1480 is another level of skill and difficulty altogether. i could be 1590 at CTS but i am training a specific way of thinking, with a specific level of care and deliberation for "real chess".
the amount of attention you spend on me is an abnormality. if i am so bad then why do you come here???????????
what is so disturbing that you seek it repetedly and, if so, what does it say about you? and how are you going about it?
not many persons average 85.6% among 1460-1530 20,000 tries+ as i have spent most of last, year, sometimes at 1550, sometimes less depending on what kind of percentage success i CHOOSE to emphasize. lastly, you can judge a persons strength by not only their rating and percentile, but a snap shot of top twenty trophies at CTS, etc.
i dont know what you want, but this is not the place for it. not the way you go about it.
bye. enough. done.
since i should be so ashamed of myself for cherry picking, and making things so 'easy' for myself at CTS, i thought it not inappropriate for me to post the last 65 tries of today, after 0/10=10 early this evening, or 3/72=75 @ 96.0%, weighted average elo here 1455.
1 p20812 1541 14.7 secs 1458.3 -0.1
2 p09302 1399 1.7 secs 1460.2 +1.9
3 p34019 1572 failed 1458.6 -1.6
4 p59545 1448 16.1 secs 1457.8 -0.8
5 p29115 1369 4.3 secs 1459.1 +1.3
6 p26331 1376 14.0 secs 1458.0 -1.0
7 p11374 1584 7.1 secs 1459.8 +1.7
8 p62469 1534 37.9 secs 1458.2 -1.6
9 p01076 1502 29.8 secs 1456.7 -1.5
10 p13744 1621 28.7 secs 1455.9 -0.8
11 p08907 1598 5.7 secs 1458.1 +2.2
12 p11639 1371 75.5 secs 1455.4 -2.7
13 p62769 1494 6.1 secs 1456.8 +1.4
14 p47419 1616 19.3 secs 1456.7 -0.1
15 p20632 1640 12.1 secs 1457.4 +0.8
16 p47236 1497 9.4 secs 1457.9 +0.4
17 p16174 1387 4.4 secs 1459.1 +1.3
18 p55028 1365 9.6 secs 1458.7 -0.4
19 p47657 1507 2.9 secs 1461.1 +2.4
20 p21745 1606 55.4 secs 1459.8 -1.2
21 p01347 1478 11.5 secs 1459.8 -0.1
22 p48023 1346 8.6 secs 1459.5 -0.2
23 p28422 1443 24.0 secs 1458.1 -1.5
24 p07004 1642 129.5 secs 1457.0 -1.0
25 p06274 1520 15.0 secs 1456.8 -0.2
26 p55944 1391 19.2 secs 1455.5 -1.3
27 p62810 1458 11.8 secs 1455.3 -0.2
28 p31107 1573 11.7 secs 1455.7 +0.4
29 p08806 1388 6.2 secs 1456.4 +0.7
30 p31056 1552 failed 1455.0 -1.4
31 p13714 1570 13.0 secs 1455.3 +0.3
32 p54154 1526 9.1 secs 1455.9 +0.6
33 p45268 1643 25.4 secs 1455.5 -0.4
34 p53729 1522 32.9 secs 1454.2 -1.3
35 p61136 1340 13.9 secs 1453.2 -1.0
36 p38294 1354 49.6 secs 1450.8 -2.4
37 p30919 1521 4.5 secs 1452.7 +1.9
38 p61165 1468 11.3 secs 1452.6 -0.1
39 p10629 1407 11.1 secs 1452.3 -0.4
40 p37655 1421 3.0 secs 1453.9 +1.7
41 p49567 1412 23.9 secs 1452.5 -1.4
42 p30130 1400 48.4 secs 1450.4 -2.1
43 p12441 1581 8.7 secs 1451.4 +1.0
44 p14835 1584 5.8 secs 1453.2 +1.8
45 p29249 1405 failed 1451.1 -2.1
46 p44837 1538 14.3 secs 1451.1 +0.0
47 p03427 1468 9.1 secs 1451.4 +0.3
48 p48090 1577 7.8 secs 1452.6 +1.2
49 p46881 1453 13.8 secs 1452.2 -0.4
50 p02493 1481 41.1 secs 1450.7 -1.5
51 p33489 1526 34.0 secs 1449.5 -1.2
52 p62653 1437 9.2 secs 1449.7 +0.1
53 p50391 1502 3.5 secs 1451.6 +1.9
54 p51471 1400 7.0 secs 1452.1 +0.5
55 p27558 1345 32.0 secs 1450.1 -2.0
56 p10314 1591 10.9 secs 1450.6 +0.6
57 p21269 1659 23.5 secs 1450.4 -0.2
58 p37455 1423 12.0 secs 1450.1 -0.3
59 p20155 1450 12.7 secs 1449.9 -0.3
60 p03037 1563 2.4 secs 1452.1 +2.2
61 p05591 1353 39.3 secs 1450.0 -2.0
62 p64698 1372 17.4 secs 1449.0 -1.0
63 p62490 1343 4.9 secs 1449.7 +0.7
64 p05675 1343 1.8 secs 1450.9 +1.2
65 p08630 1360 12.0 secs 1450.3 -0.6
if any kind readers can suggest how i can get past my awful and terrable slump, i would only be so greatful. i need to be told what to do, working like a dog as i do.
:)
only some twelve persons out of 1879 active tacticians or one in 157 users have also attained 1450 elo+ >10,000 tries and >85.5%, so i feel totally ashamed of myself.
only eight other persons out of 1879 active users have a higher percentage accuracy than me at 96.2% at 1305 elo, and one in 626 users has a higher rating at that accuracy or better.
my laxity is disturbing. and i make it easy on myself.
i am not the best, but am perhaps adequate.
Troll's don't deserve so much energy. I delete their comments without comment. Every now and then I'll leave one of them up just to celebrate having a troll at my blog because troll's are kind of funny in a pathetic gollum kind of way.
I'm assuming there was a troll here, but his posts are gone, one who won't allow comments on his or her blog or something.
well dave, i actually did try my hand at a blog...but honestly i dont know anything about blogging or computers so i quickly gave up on it...and besides, i dont really feel the need to tell the world about how many chess problems i did on any givin day. but i'll continue to look at others and yours since you are the benchmark for what i'd like to achieve as a chess player, and i dont foresee giving up on my goal. anytime. ever. holler at ya later dog,
troy
various comments at CTS recently, most germane to above:
(i)
thank you wormwood, laskoVortex, and haconly: i read all everyone aptly says here with delight and interest. Thank You.
i am on vacation back east with
the usual time adjust, and since i both work late out west and go to bed very late there, this is like flying to Moscow for me*! briefest comments: systems of rank really involve amplitude whereby small amounts are added (or accumulated) and subtracted (or dissipated). for example, in the stock market, we call this accumulation or distribution. you can be +1.1, then +0.2, then -0.8, then -1.1, then +0.4 and wind up minus 0.2. LONG term, in all those buys and sells, real patterns evolve, but it takes time.
i respect Laskos work VERY much, but if i may humbly suggest, exactly as wormwood says, it may not be thirty points, it might be
75 or 150, or might start as minus 100 then only be -50 as a new problems set and types of chess challenges are routinely challenged and thus exercised with persistence. BUT over time, over not a thousand or two thousand problems, but more like six-thousand problems, inevitably all those good days and bad days aggregate. even as slight a drift of -0.5 over 90 days alone is 45 elo. of course, if the problems get easier, so does the accuracy, but AGAIN as wormwood says so
very well, to go from 1f/9s=10 tries @ 90.0%, then to 95.0% is not five percent harder, but almost double psychologically--1f/19s=20 @ 95% since it is
exponentially harder. the goal is not ranking in a "community of knowledge", or status or ego in a
"user-base" but, when we play "real chess", to have the
habit "burned into the circuitry of our brains" [as Yasser Seirawan said to me as dropped him off at his condo in Seattle from one of our many long walks] of searching for the best move.
i wish to assert that whether accessing a position (not a move) takes 16, 22, or even 45 seconds instead of 6 or 7 seconds is a bit
irrelevent unless it be 3/0 blitz, and the key is the ongoing cultivation of the habit of correct things maximally. 1f/29s= 30@ 97.0% becomes harder, and
1f/49s= 50 @98% much harder. needless to say, if you get TOO accurate, we do indeed get "diminishing returns" to use yet another term from complex adaptive systems of complexity theory, and the lessons of chess
fall off.
but i do believe many here would benefit greatly from trying for 85.0% if not 90.0% (A.) and
(B.) feel that many would find it harder than they think (foiled by, "oh that is easy, anybody can do that!")*. lastly, while i do not wish to disrespect Oberdan's gallant 100,800 tries @73.9% were thinking or Clyk's 92,636 tries @ 62.8%, i sincerely wonder what could have been learned in one third the tries with more care and deliberation, and far be it for me to say such quantities are great
attainments, i instead wonder what some heavy users less than wormwoods respectable 77.7% were thinking the whole time [let us
applaud wormwood and do not wish to disrespect his fantastically committed efforts, nor his evidence of 1800++ correspondence rating]. bye. thanks, david
http://
dk-transformation.blogspot.com/
(ii)
haconly: your recent activity shows 7 out of 20 wrong, and wish to respectfully submit, if you were playing live chess like that, you'd be getting killed. "real
chess" as heiseman at chessCafe.com is finding the best
move, not a race to see how fast you can move the mouse, and guess right ("hopechess") to somehow see if you can keep your rating near or at 1600. please consider that, if i may politely suggest.
prufrock: thank you for your devils advocate comment, all well
said. the utility, in my humble opinion, of accuracy here, is instilling the habit of accurate chess thinking as a permanent rather than inadvertent part of chess thinking, or the chess decision process IN REAL TIME.
as wormwood suggests, the problem set is so large that while of course random repetitions do occur, the variety is sufficient not so much to test this aspect
of chess as to EXERCISE it. and, lastly, some users here--if not many of them--use CT-Art3.0 and, in my case, can take an hour or more for one problem, and solve in depth without recourse to guessing, using raw careful calculation.
the ideal--*for me*-is a mixture
of the two, CTS for this exercise of rapid sight of the board, and CTA 3.0 to exercise calculation in depth slowly, just as i play blitz and correspondence alike when not traveling. i dont wish so much to memorize these exercises (low percentage, high tries), as to
experience them (higher percentage, allowing lower tries). best regards, dk
(iii)
haconly, i promise not to waste your time. i solemnly promise that if you read my second to last post AND comments at my blog referenced in the posts below, you will get a lot of perspective on ratings. also, see embedded link to colorodo master about ratings, and how greater difficulty is put in perspective. to fully comprehend the post, if i may please suggest, you might read the comments there, which are not inextensive, and help amplify and clarify.
if i were to put the post in a nutshell, id have to say that it is better to have a win/loss ratio of 179W/304L/17d= 500 @35.8% wins with 3% draws AND at 1450 rating--that is to say less than 40% wins if not less than 36%, better to have that than be 1500 in a live chess rapid, blitz, or bullet form
with 350W/140L/10d @70%+ wins. who would you rather face? who is more battle hardened? who is habitually patterned to stiff struggle. same here at CTS. in the stock market, not losing is one of the most significant rules. rule number one, "don't loose money". rule
two, "dont loose money". rule three, when in doubt, refer to rule one. take care, dk
comment to likeforest's post
today, cc here:
(iv)
this is just a fantastic ccomplishment. i almost beat a 2000 elo once but, missing the one provision for winning in a rapid game, lost, so must settle for a 1860 scalp.
may you you savor this memory and feeling until it becomes one day not too far off, alas, a 2000.
on a personal note, i am not a big radio and music person, but i am at my mothers back east (we are leaving in 0:45 for a big extended family barbeque) where i grew up, just outside new york, close enough that from one good hill you can see the skyline, and am absolutely blown away by the local most absolutely excellent alternative public radio station.
of course, every visit i listen, having been long familiar, but i literally feel by each hour energy beaming into my body and being from new york from this music.
i do not wish to glamorize new york, having lived there for many years during and after college, going so far as to get an apartment there alone at age 17 when i went to cooper union on a full scholarship, tuition free PRIVATE (a rarity).
in fact, despite a professional license in that state of many years, i prefer NEVER to go back. but i can feel the strength come through the air waves, the unrelenting techno pulse, the punk retro songs, the off color off broadway stuff they play from the fifties and somehow make it all cool. new york cannot be beat. literally beat. beat, pulse, beat dominated. one day it will collapse, but, such a day is far off, it the depth of it shows, for me, in an uncanny way at the depth and breadth of this music.
* * *
while as intellectual as anyone, that does not say that my emotional nature does not far exceed that element. i feel deeply and constantly, and is my essence or nature. to hear this music is almost to be broken inside, as i see my mother skin and bones, and recall my own misspent youth, pursuing all sorts, in design, and asian studies, and martial arts, and outside this gigantic beehive, must metabolize all this like a huge alien technology homeopathy tincture, 5M. the sadness is the passing of life, but, of course, she has had her chance to live, as i have, you have, and your daughter is now having to the full.
this time chance is like going to moscow, and next monday i must be up at 4:30 est or when i would otherwise be at my desk in seattle far from bed and doing CTS! 25 hour++ swing....
warmly, dk
ps, when i am home in eight days, thereafter i will copy your game and view. mamaedarov at sofia played the scandanavian against, topy or kamsky, in round one or two, as i recall.
message at wormwoods post, late april:
(V)
yes, ive watched in outline the entire event. im an oddball, but i look up my friends history at ICC and noticed you a, had fallen, and b, were coming back strong. i dont miss much, and i am a very inquiring person widely across many areas and persons.
congratulations! im sure youll get there.
a few thoughts. at first, i thought my resistance to hitting 1300 then 1400 at faster time controls was an anomaly. but after repeated attempts up to and including too many games VERY EXACTLY AS YOU DESCRIBE, THINKING i will 'just play a few games and "get it back"', i instead came to realize that whatever the reason that AT THAT TIME, my rating was my true rating for that time frame.
all my real rating threshold conquests--and there have been six or seven in my life--were preceded by long effort. if it werent, then this would not be your real rating threshold from your current level, and would just be an intermediate to short term milestone.
and as you also know from your brilliant raise from 1500 to 1600 and beyond at CTS, in large and conspicuous format, getting to 1600 was a lot different that being at 1600!
and 'last but not least', once you get to 1300, id like to see a few 1400 and 1500 scalps hanging there, and more loses, or a greater loss ratio. you always say that you are just trying to learn to first practice not dropping pieces, and seeing all those forks and skewers and such.
but "A REAL 1300" is someone who beats 1400's 1/3 of the time, and 1500's 10% of the time. do you understand that? if you get there upon a bunch of 1100 and 1200 and some 1300's, then this is not quite a solid rating. sorry, but it is true.
when carlsen moved from the higher echelon of high level grandmasters to super GM's, his wins were few and far between, but necessary for his becoming what he almost is, part of the elite top 20 in the world who beat top 100 GM's as a matter of course.
bottvinnik wrote about this, how he became first a master, then a master who beat other masters; then a grandmaster, and after that a grandmaster who routinely beat other grandmasters. same here with you. you are not routinely beating other 1300's at 5-minute blitz, so take a look at that one.
good luck sir, and always enjoy all that you write and share with us.
warmly, dk
haconly: without question, exactly as you conclude. if you look at the introduction of Seirawan's Winning Chess Endings, which he spent several years writing, he intimates that he started ONLY players outranking him.
at first, as he describes, he took a vicious beating, then, in time, started to win a few, then latter more, thus became America's second most accomplished chess player. As he described to me in one of our many long walks around Seattle's Greenlake, when he first took a big jump from 2100 or 2200--literally straight up, to 2500 or so, he "thought for sure that" he "was overrated. But" he "never went down after that, but for
months after, kept expecting it.
bottom line, 67 to 75% here is really not chess but a roulette wheel. those with 30,000 and 50,000 at that percentage, to that I can but shake my head, and wonder, "what did you learn?" In my analysis referenced below, I found that a bullet rating at ICC of 1400 correlates to a 1580 blitz rating, and a 1720 standard rating--and as you know, this is heuristically and objectively derived, via my own spreadsheet calculations.
my bullet rating went from 1000, to 1200, to 1400 in the second half of the last year at CTS, despite starting there at 1600 blitz, and remaining there for a bit, while I was variously climbed from 1500 to 1680 yahoo blitz (3 min/8 sec increment). to each his own, but CTS in my humble opinion works best while carefully nurturing exact rather than speculative thinking, that is to say, "experiencing NOT memorizing your problem set".
low % entails repeated attempts on MANY problems, and while gratifying in creating the sense that "something is happening", in fact is a lot less efficient or
integrated than higher percentage that inculcates the habit of "real chess"--
which, when performed, does not seem like a unique experience, but you literally whip out the moves compared to before, since you see the board faster, when linearly derived moves in forced situations arise at the board, in view of copious practice here.
What an interesting post! I really enjoyed your logic, and, by the way, did you take that picture of the dragonfly? Amazing! I must admit, when I got to the point where the black and white picture of you (?) and that girl was visible, I lost all concentration on the article. LOL
no. i didnt take it. but collect online photos. i am highly trained in the visual arts from many aspects, so selecting a photo is a skill in itself.
do please try not to worry to much about wins, and once you can win 30 to 40% of the time, it will be your correct level. those above you will punish you, and you need that, just not all the time.
your rating aught to adjust till you can find that point. Heisman says as much (more like 40, not 30%, my ideal).
but mark my words, it is not easy to face!
Post a Comment
<< Home