Alex

chess player

[Alex @DubiousChess]

@ChessGainz Qd4

[Alex @DubiousChess]

@eyeslasho You could replace "Hitler" with any other person in history and the correct answer would always be that they had some good ideas, because with how many hundreds of thousands of ideas a person has in their life, it's guaranteed you'll agree with at least one.

[Alex @DubiousChess]

@eyeslasho This just seems like a really badly worded question to me. If Hitler had a good idea for a place to go to lunch one day, then technically "Hitler had some good ideas" is the correct answer here. "Some" just means any number greater than zero.

[Alex @DubiousChess]

@thereshopeblout @Gustavo46487908 @STLChessClub @ChrisBirdIA Currently, Fabi is +2, but is shown to be tied on 3/5 with two players who are only +1. Which obviously makes no sense because +2 should be half a point ahead of +1. This discrepancy would be fixed by changing the 0 point byes to 0.5 point byes.

[Alex @DubiousChess]

@thereshopeblout @Gustavo46487908 @STLChessClub @ChrisBirdIA No, Fabi and Welsey would get 0.5, just like everyone else.

[Alex @DubiousChess]

@Gustavo46487908 @STLChessClub @ChrisBirdIA No, you are misunderstanding my suggestion. By the end of the tournament every player would have an additional half point. So the order of the final standings would not actually change. This would just make mid-tournament standings actually readable.

[Alex @DubiousChess]

@STLChessClub @ChrisBirdIA Just going to tag @ChrisBirdIA here, please consider this, it's been a pet peeve of mine for years! It's an incredibly simple fix to an unfortunately common problem.

[Alex @DubiousChess]

@STLChessClub @ChrisBirdIA This wouldn't meaningfully affect the final standings, since it would give everyone an extra half point equally. But it would make the mid-tournament standings actually readable. Under the current system you can't tell which players have had their 0 point bye and which haven't.

[Alex @DubiousChess]

@den_draft @kingsrook14 @HannoKlausmeier @ChessifyMe 1. Rd6 Rb1 2. Re8 Rb8 3. Rxb8# is not a mate in 2. So Rd6 is incorrect.

[Alex @DubiousChess]

@dsmerdon A more useful metric would be one that shows how many players at each age improve by a statistically significant amount of rating points within a period of time. Which would likely show a much steeper drop-off among older players.

[Alex @DubiousChess]

@dsmerdon This data doesn't necessarily show growth though - just new peak ratings. A player who spends decades in the 1900s, and then peaks at 2001, then immediately drop back down, hasn't really improved. Thats just variance.

[Alex @DubiousChess]

@natesolon I've used a similar system for the Alapin, plus one additional rule - after the trade on d4, if White plays Nc3, then capturing on c3 is almost always fine.

[Alex @DubiousChess]

@DrLangstrand That linked rating chart shows a progression from 1500 to 1800 over fourteen years, not 1200 to 1800 over a few years...

[Alex @DubiousChess]

@penguingm1 @VBkramnik 91 accuracy without even playing a single game, very suspicious

[Alex @DubiousChess]

@VishChess @natesolon Also, ratings are all just relative anyway. One could argue a club with floored players is overrated, but one could also argue a tournament with 1000 rated kids, who studied over covid and play like 1800s, is underrated. Whose to say which rating pool is the "accurate" one?

[Alex @DubiousChess]

@VishChess @natesolon Sure, you might not know exactly. But I still don't see what that has to do with whether you are improving. Is it better to play an accurately rated 1900, than a floored 2000 who plays at 1900 strength? You gain more rating from the latter, but it's the same experience.

[Alex @DubiousChess]

@VishChess @wmiltti @MeerMaurits So overall, I wouldn't expect inflation to be more than maybe a couple dozen points. Especially since in the real world, there are no closed systems, and many of the players play real tournaments, with similar results as they get in the club.

[Alex @DubiousChess]

@VishChess @wmiltti @MeerMaurits So just to clarify what I said about the rating floors - 75% of players at my club are retirement age. Not at their floor. Most are well above the floor, and the ones at or near it, are generally at most 50-100 pts overrated.

[Alex @DubiousChess]

@VishChess @natesolon The existence of some overrated players doesn't mean it is impossible to improve. If someone's rating improves from 1500 to 1900, then they leave the club and play like an 1850, is that not improvement?