|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Mar-07-11 | | Shams: <FSR> Between the two of us, you're the master, so I suppose I have to defer to you, but it seems to me a close call whether 2200 vs. 900 isn't a larger gap than 2200 vs. 2750. Remember that Kasparov required prior permission before he'd allow 2000+ players to participate in simuls against him. I'm only USCF ~1900, but I'm certain I could score 12-0 against a dozen 900 players in a simul. White's play here seems much stronger than what we'd expect from a 900 player. I'd put him at least 1300. |
|
Mar-07-11
 | | perfidious: <FSR> You had to blow the entire pretence of my existence in this world; I thought master was spelt G O D. No wonder I gave up chess for poker. In most of my encounters with GMs (up to 2600 level), it felt as though they were control of things for the most part, especially in long games. In blitz, not always so. All the same, 'tis a long way from here to climb that particular mountain. |
|
| Mar-08-11 | | lorker: Why on earth does Goldsby even bother posting a game with a player rated <867>? Is it really such a feat that someone more than 1300 points higher rated than the unfortunate 867 can win? Are we all supposed to be impressed with the LIFE master after seeing his crushing victory of an 867 player? What a joke. Games like this should not be published online. Goldsby is an embarrassment to himself and to the community of LIFE masters in general. |
|
| Mar-16-11 | | fab4: The level of play exhibited here is pretty poor TBH. White seems to know nothing about chess. |
|
Mar-16-11
| | perfidious: <fab4> Your jealousy is obvious-only in your imagination could you destroy an 867 player with the elan displayed herein by the <Life Baiter>. Maybe one day I'll also display such surpassing skill-but I can't remember the last time I played someone rated 867. Had to be in the mid 1970s though. |
|
| Mar-16-11 | | Martha Stewart: I thought Dahlke did very well for a ranking of 867. I'm just an uninspired mediocre chess scrub, but I thought he played more like a ~1400, especially against someone of substantially higher ranking. I'm not sure why the game was posted, but bravo for the underdog. |
|
| Mar-16-11 | | Garech: <Martha Stewart>
I agree, Dahlke played well and could have refuted Goldsby's exchange sacrifices quite easily. 33.e6! was winning for white, a very nice shot.
-Garech |
|
| May-11-11 | | Maatalkko: Common guys, we're not giving AJ enough credit for his accomplishments. Scott Dahlke is stronger than 867. He's an active player, still improving, and his current rating is 962. |
|
| May-11-11 | | howlwolf: White drops a pawn in this game and it looks like AJ is going to easily score the point, when his opponent begins to play with some enterprise. AJ defends ok but I think he went wrong with 29. . .Qa7; it looks to me like Nc6 was much stronger, and thematic, threatening Nd4 followed by Re2. To stop this white can either contest the e-file by 30 Re1 when black just captures with 30 ...Re1 and white has to recapture 31 Nel (otherwise he drops a piece)and black's pieces are much more active and his passed pawn should win. The only reasonable alternative to 30 Re1 is 30 Rd2 and 30 . . .Nd4 31Qd1 Qb7 is a strong answer. This would have been a simple, reasonable course for this game, and one that I would expect a master to see, but maybe AJ wanted to liven the game up with the double exhange sacrifice and give his opponent a sniff of a potential rating point bonanza.
Sigh. Now I have done it, I have contributed to the AJ dialogues. It it one thing to rubber-neck the accident on the side of the interstate but now I am participating in it. |
|
| May-11-11 | | tacticalmonster: This is EYE CANDY, guys! We are so used to seeing < LMAJ > posted games against rated 400 UCFC opposition that by comparsion he was up against highly rated opponent this time! I would love to see his win against USCF 100 opposition, the lowest rating possible in USCF ratin, how he has to work really hard to win a 80 moves+ game. |
|
May-11-11
 | | FSR: Scott Dahlke is evidently a chess prodigy. I looked him up on the USCF website. http://main.uschess.org/component/o... He's rated 957 in the May supplement and will be rated 962 as of June 1. If he keeps improving by five rating points a month, he will rated over 2800 by February 2042. By December 2042, he will be rated 2852. That will make him the highest-rated player in history (assuming that no one has since passed Kasparov's peak rating, and that USCF ratings are equivalent to FIDE ratings). |
|
May-11-11
| | FSR: <perfidious: ... I can't remember the last time I played someone rated 867. Had to be in the mid 1970s though.> I don't recall ever playing anyone rated below 1100. |
|
| May-11-11 | | lorker: It's not Goldsby's fault that he had to play an 867 player, like he said he doesn't control the pairings at the tournaments he plays in. However, it is his fault that this complete waste of space was published on chessgames.com. I have never seen another person who would be proud of a victory against someone with less than half of their rating. Perhaps Goldsby thinks this is his immortal, or something. |
|
| May-11-11 | | jahinder: So much angry. AJ Goldsby games are to show for beginning player for learning (this is how the horse moves, this is how to capture with pawn) because these games do not have any complicated ideas. Also, he makes many same mistakes beginners do also for example not castling in best timely manner, not knowing where to place bishop and queen, not understanding the tactic importance, so that is helpful also to show beginners. Please be happy. Understand if you know basic ideas, AJ Goldby games are not useful. Better you look at games played by advanced players. Most thankful. |
|
| May-11-11 | | Maatalkko: Nakamura's already rated 2876 USCF. I would wager most GM's don't care and probably don't even know what their USCF rating is. |
|
| May-11-11 | | Colonel Mortimer: Goldsby's sacrifice was showy at best (?!) perhaps [??!]. He was a pawn up with a protected passer, with a better bishop and more space. He successfully turned a technical win into a draw, were it not for the gazillion point difference in rating of his opponent. |
|
Jun-03-11
| | perfidious: <Maatalkko> No doubt you're right about that. The only time they might care is in a crucial spot for colour allocation in one of the major swisses. |
|
| Jun-03-11 | | solskytz: I don't understand how a guy who plays like that can be rated 867. He gives a fight that is many hundred points above that level - I would estimate such a player at definitely no less than 1600 - and quite likely 1700. |
|
| Jun-03-11 | | SickedChess: even my dog is rated over 900 ;) |
|
Jun-03-11
| | perfidious: <solskytz> With young, rapidly improving players, it's possible. He played well above his rating in this game, but in the next game, who knows? |
|
| Jun-03-11 | | solskytz: who knows, indeed...
poor old Goldsby - having to compete with all of the low-rated rising forces in chess - which may well account for his sub-2200 performance in general... at least in Israel (where I used to play competitive chess until about 2003) it was well known that people in levels of from 1800 to 2300 lose many many points exactly because they need to play youngsters who are skyrocketing, pulling their rating far behind them. In my last tourney in Israel I had played three opponents, whom in the next rating update rose up around 300, 200 and 100 points - quite frustrating indeed, when you also want to go up the ratings, and suddenly you encounter such unexpected resistance... Goldsby here does steal a pawn at move 10, it is true, through his opponent momentary inattentiveness - but it's just a pawn... in the next 10 moves after that the '867' fights for territory just like a real chess player - I assume that nobody over 1700 would expect a '867' opponent to survive until move 20 with all of his material (less a pawn, it is true). You expect a walk in the park... and should normally get it !!!! (I protest here in the name of Goldsby...) |
|
| Jun-03-11 | | solskytz: looking at this game again, I'm again impressed by white's determination (such as advancing and exchanging a pawn, putting immediately a rook in the open file against the enemy queen) - and even more so at the skill involved in the move 24-25 knight maneuver (!). 1600 for sure - maybe 1700. |
|
Jun-03-11
| | FSR: <perfidious: <solskytz> With young, rapidly improving players, it's possible. He played well above his rating in this game, but in the next game, who knows?> I looked Mr. Dahlke up on the USCF site. His current rating is 962, which seems pathetic (my lowest published rating ever, at age 14, was 1383, and I certainly didn't think that made me a prodigy), but places him in the 77th percentile among junior players. I'm not sure if that means under 21, under 18 or what. His record against opponents by rating in the last 12 months seems weird to me. He has beaten almost everyone who is rated below 1100, and the one unrated he played (total score: 5 wins, 1 draw), and has lost to everyone rated 1100-1399 (5 losses). Here's the weird part: he's done better against players rated 1400-1899 than he has against players rated 1100-1399, and his percentage keeps going up as his opponents' ratings go up: (1 draw and 3 losses against 1400s, 1 draw and 1 loss against 1500s, and 1 draw against an 1800-something). (He also has two lifetime losses against 2200s, one of them doubtless being this game, but both are outside of the last 12 months.) http://main.uschess.org/datapage/ga... I am no statistician, and the sample size is tiny, but this seems strange. Who consistently loses to 1100s through 1300s, but can draw an 1800? And what sub-1000 player draws so many games? I always thought that very low-rated players almost always lost or won. Maybe his draws (never wins) against higher-rated players occur because he gets completely winning games, his opponents think "OMG! I'm going to lose to a 900 player!!!" and offer draws out of desperation, and he accepts because he's so overawed by their ratings. |
|
| Jun-03-11 | | solskytz: who knows? Such anomalities do exist...
I get a 90% to 95% score against my brother. Once I visited an uncle in Denmark and had two very tough games against him, the score being a closely contested 1:1. This quite astonished my brother (who almost always loses against me and knows much less about chess than I do), who, as I learned later, visited him somewhat earlier and beat him 13:4 without any real difficulty. |
|
| Jun-03-11 | | solskytz: Also FSR, just by the performance that you state, this player should have probably risen much more than just the points from 867 to 962, isn't that right? Or maybe it's simply too few games. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 30...Rxe5