"So you'd like to discriminate against some people's strengths in favour of other people's, and suggest that fast automatically equates to tactically unaware"
No i'd like to have the best atomic players in top 10 atomic and not 10 strong bullet players.
"Regardless of the time control, atomic is still atomic"
Not if you rely on bullet speed for all games, rather than for individual variant ability.
The reason why I suggest to include all bullet timed games to bullet is that it reflects how well you perform with minimal time, and how well you can run down the clock if need be.
#9 I think that's highly unfair to Viacheslav Gorbonosov, and I don't know quite where this 'reputation' came from.
First, he is such a good player that at one point he had two accounts in the top 10 and closed one.
Second, the stats simply don't add up about him 'usually losing' to anyone who is around his strength. Just today he pretty much mashed an opponent of his own strength - look at his results.
Third, good for him that he is willing sometimes to accept games with 'lower' opponents. Many of the highly rated players seem to act as though they don't exist.
#12
To have 2 accounts is not hard at all, see me. The thing is why do you need two different accounts (for me it is conservativy, team match style vs. chess opens/modern/attacking style, that's why its good to have two). If I wanted I could create 10 and wouldn't
prove anything by that.
I can just say about my experience- we had about 12 games, bullet of course, he won 7:5 but how described above, but after the very first games he started to play more on time and he started to beat me. Unfortunately he didn't want to play with more time. Of course I will admit he is the best bullet player in many variations, but I don't have much respect for him due to his chess skills only. I just would like to see players on top from whom I can learn (e.g. how to play 3 check) and not to see how he wins drawn rook endgames against -500 oponents due to having 5 sec more on his clock.
A nice example is (Orange...) from 3 check. It was my favourite variation where I have beaten anyone on any time contrlo (usually it's 3-1: mixed chances with black due to higly disadvantage and clear wins with white), until I played the named guy and he stumped me in the ground. I didn't stand a chance (I got just about 30% of the points). This is a player who deserved the very first place and it's a much different pitcure to Singer_Marta
Lastly you have also to admit- even if it is nice for you to play against such a big guy, at the same time it is his only way to keep up his 1st place. He has to be active to keep the rating, so he has to play some games in each variation. Consecutivly he wants to play them fast and the first players around are more of the lower rated kind. Sometimes he even loses, which is why he has to play not to less games to get back to his original rating. It may be also the reason why he loses practise against the same rated guys and risks to much.
I don't want to critisize him at all, how I said it may be that he beats me over the board with easy, but the games I see myself from him don't impress me much and it hurts a bit on my pride, that just a very few people (the rest) wants to play strong chess, and much more just look to get a rating they don't deserve. I could give you immediatly 5 examples of players around my rating in KOTH and 960 playing only 0+1. I lost 10% of my games against them just by lag(!), still got a result about 40-60%, and of course I didn't get the chance to play at least at 1+0 time control. I rarely get opponents and on the rating table at the end I get surpassed by time players. And if you just tell me "thats how it works" then just think about what it does mean about the variations itself. Do we need to regard 960 as a fun game the fastest people to win or as a serious challenge like chess itself?
I kind of understand the problem, but it's not easy or practical to "punish" bullet players. I'm only 1100-1300 OTB (I haven't played that much OTB lately) while I'm much better at bullet (peak of nearly 1900 on this site) because I have a fast gaming mouse and I enjoy to pre-move and take advantage of playing offbeat openings and play actively on time.
I simply find 1|0 more fun to play than slower chess, but if I really want to become better, I need to play at much slower time controls. I guess people who play variant at 1|0 have the same attributes as I do, though I don't play variants.
#13 Everyone plays by the same rules. If Singer__Marta (Gorbonosov) beat you mainly on time that's surely because either (a) you aren't fast enough, or (b) you were too good to be checkmated in the time available. Either way, Gorbonosov has his rating fairly, under the system provided. If we feel the system is wrong, that it needs altering because someone has adapted their game-style to take advantage of it - that's another matter.
As far as 'lag' is concerned, Thibault has explained that it is compensated for - pretty much eliminating people's excuse for losing to 'lag'. He wrote:
"Let's face it: lichess is the fastest chess server. By using the right set of technologies, we managed to keep the pages lightweight and the server responsive. It became even better this month, thanks to several performance tweaks on the interface.
However there is one lag that cannot be fixed: the geographical lag. Lichess server is in France, and if you connect from US West Coast, you will have a ~300ms geographical lag. It's just inevitable; but at least lichess compensates it on your game clock, to preserve fairness in fast games."
This player is a bit reclusive, it seems, and he's under no obligation to stream games, contribute to the forum, or have friendly banter with 'the lads'; he doesn't have to enter competitions... or play against anyone he doesn't wish to. Personally - while it does nothing for me to play against and lose horribly to brilliant chess masters - I admire him and can't help thinking there's a lot of sour grapes going on.
The two account thing? Well I was referring to him having two bullet accounts in the top 10 at one point. I think he could fill up the top 10 with ease, quite honestly.
So I'm sorry to disagree with you, but I'd just say "well done" to you for only losing normally on time to this wonderful player.
look at the difference at my atomic and bullet rating it has no correlation whatsoeverr
I'm not here to slag off the different so-called variants of chess, but let's face it, most of them are only called 'variants' because they use the same pieces. The skill set required to win at atomic, bullet, KoTH... they are all different, because the games are different too.
The only 'true' variant, for me, is Fischer's 960.
That's why I roll my eyes everytime someone suggests yet another variant. Personally, I've always thought they should stick at making proper chess as amazing as possible on this site, and sod the variants.
No the variants are amazing
- I'm glad you like them, but they're not actually chess variants in the main...
#15 I never claimed to better than Singer_Marta. And it is highly probable given the same equipment (mouse, connnection) he will beat me, in bullet of any kind. I wanted just to point out the problem given only one ladder, no offense on Singer_Marta personally. But it is hard compare if he only plays 1+0 and I play more likely >3+0 (you have to admit, 1+0 on chess960 is a bit tough compared to usual bullet with prelearned positions up to the endgame). I have no problem by myself to be #5-10 but I get rather no opponents at all since they only play against me when I'm in a bad mood and they are able to win. As soon as I get my full strength they leave after the 2nd game and never return. (I even got a guy who made a new account to get to the top 10 3check since I stopped his winstreak and fast ascending, just to kick him again :P)
About the other thing, for me chess960 and KOTH are full chess. In KOTH you have to remeber your chess, and aswell know the aditional possibility of getting to the mid. I'm not speaking of the 2.Ke2?? guys I encounter to often in 0+1, but think about the following: Is french advisible, since it gives up the field d4 for free and in any game you lose in KOTH the endgame (like the easy to occur bad bishop vs knight you would hold in a usual game). On the other hand, if you encounter french, what are the variants where you will defenetly get the wished endgame (even with pawn sacrifices if needed)? I think of the latter one as a tough strategical challenge from the start. But, how can you face such a tough challenge with 0+1 and guys who play 1.e4 2.Ke2 and either win at move 10 (by posing threaths you have to parry real quick) or lose because of the terrible start...
