Cunningham Prop bet to get to 2100

[perfidious]

Originally Posted by Allen C

My bet is to beat Howard in a single chess game in one year and his maximum rating was over 2100 uscf. However, he hasn't played seriously in over a decade (maybe way over) and intends to spend 0.00 hours on chess over the next year. I plan to play and study about 6 hours a day.

How do you like my chances now? How rusty do you think one's game gets with that kind of lay off? I'd say my current strength is to beat those class D kids about 7/8.

Allen,

Hope Howard laid some good odds, because even if you were to attain 1900 strength in this time, and we assume Howard's to be 1800, you'd still expect to score ~5/8.

As to your question regarding the layoff, I haven't played a game in over nine years, and know I'd be rusty as hell, though I often get on chessgames.com and check out different things there. When I quit playing (to take up poker, fool that I am!) I was 2200 US and FIDE 2186. Be lucky if that were much more than 2000 now.

[loveinvain]

Originally Posted by belgian in TO

The point of doing puzzles is to recognize the tricks before they matter.

As a (now retired) 22xx player, I immediately noticed the Rxf7+ trick in #1, simply because I have seen this idea a few times before.

You mentioned back a while that, as poker player, you're not especially keen in spending more time in front of the computer (which I get), but I really recommend spending time with CT-ART to increase your tactical pattern recognition.

Pierre.

Yeah puzzles would help with positions like #1 but just playing a lot would help with positinos like #2. I would eliminate mistakes like #2 first.

[ganstaman]

Originally Posted by Allen C

And lovinvain: although I agree tactics puzzles are extremely useful, I doubt doing more of them would help eliminate mistake #2 as much as simply playing more OTB games (the board is just too big and 3-d compared to the little diagrams in my books/screens).

You can set up the puzzles on a real board. Also, I'm short, but when I play live I will at times sit up tall to get more of an overhead view of the board, almost makes it look more 2D.

[curtains]

I think I'm ready to sidebet on Allen C. When is the game to be played?

[All-inMcLovin]

Originally Posted by curtains

I think I'm ready to sidebet on Allen C. When is the game to be played?

GL finding any takers..

[2theleft]

cunningham will never get to 2100 in a year. depending on what his current skilll level is. I think the hardest part would be getting from 2000 to 2100

[belgian in TO]

Originally Posted by 2theleft

cunningham will never get to 2100 in a year. depending on what his current skilll level is. I think the hardest part would be getting from 2000 to 2100

The prop bet is actually "just" to beat Howard Lederer in a game.

Pierre.

[JQPublic777]

GL allen!!

[Guarded]

nice

[Punker]

Originally Posted by curtains

I think I'm ready to sidebet on Allen C. When is the game to be played?

Might be interested under the right terms. However, the original post by Allen said something like he just has to beat him once and didn't really stipulate whether there was a limit on the # of attempts. I think Howard can hold him off for a few games, but obviously Allen should win the bet if they play 10 games or something.

I'm in the minority here, but I think a true 2100 player doesn't drop anywhere near as much as many of you think due to inactivity. Whether Howard was a "true" 2100 player is certainly up for debate.

I always remember a quote I read in CL many years ago from (I think) either Ilya Gurevich or Maxim Dlugy where they came back after some relatively long period of inactivity and stll performed reasonably well, where they said that serious chess study means you learn certain things about chess, and those things don't go away, and to beat them, you still have to overcome that knowledge. I don't think someone who misses Nd7 or Qe8 in the most recent two examples is going to do that (no offense Allen).

[Sholar]

Originally Posted by Punker

Might be interested under the right terms. However, the original post by Allen said something like he just has to beat him once and didn't really stipulate whether there was a limit on the # of attempts. I think Howard can hold him off for a few games, but obviously Allen should win the bet if they play 10 games or something.

I think it was clarified that they would play one game.

I'm in the minority here, but I think a true 2100 player doesn't drop anywhere near as much as many of you think due to inactivity. Whether Howard was a "true" 2100 player is certainly up for debate.

I always remember a quote I read in CL many years ago from (I think) either Ilya Gurevich or Maxim Dlugy where they came back after some relatively long period of inactivity and stll performed reasonably well, where they said that serious chess study means you learn certain things about chess, and those things don't go away, and to beat them, you still have to overcome that knowledge.

There's a huge difference between the chess knowledge of a 2100 expert and a 2500 GM and I'd guess that relatively speaking, inactivity would impact a 2100 more than a 2500.

[smilingbill]

I might give some action too, depending on when the game is played and conditions

[Punker]

Originally Posted by Sholar

There's a huge difference between the chess knowledge of a 2100 expert and a 2500 GM and I'd guess that relatively speaking, inactivity would impact a 2100 more than a 2500.

Yes but I also have my own experience to draw on as a rather out of practice 2100 level player as well

[curtains]

Originally Posted by Punker

Might be interested under the right terms. However, the original post by Allen said something like he just has to beat him once and didn't really stipulate whether there was a limit on the # of attempts. I think Howard can hold him off for a few games, but obviously Allen should win the bet if they play 10 games or something.

I'm in the minority here, but I think a true 2100 player doesn't drop anywhere near as much as many of you think due to inactivity. Whether Howard was a "true" 2100 player is certainly up for debate.

I always remember a quote I read in CL many years ago from (I think) either Ilya Gurevich or Maxim Dlugy where they came back after some relatively long period of inactivity and stll performed reasonably well, where they said that serious chess study means you learn certain things about chess, and those things don't go away, and to beat them, you still have to overcome that knowledge. I don't think someone who misses Nd7 or Qe8 in the most recent two examples is going to do that (no offense Allen).

isn't Howard's current rating under 2000?

I looked it up, its 1951. This is why I want to bet. If Howard was 2100 I would not want to bet

[Punker]

Originally Posted by curtains

isn't Howard's current rating under 2000?

I looked it up, its 1951. This is why I want to bet. If Howard was 2100 I would not want to bet

I believe that rating is like 25-30 years old (maybe more). A 1951 in 1980 is different than a 1951 now.