| From | Message |
nathanman22
11/30/2007
23:51:19
[ report abuse ] |
 Subject: 500 WIN CLUB
Message:
Tonight, I was able to claim my 500th win here at gameknot. If you also have 500 wins, feel free to add your name to this list--we are the people who have stuck around long enough to play over 500 games and have come up with over 500 wins!
-Nathanman22
|
blackbaron
11/30/2007
23:59:58
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
Only 500? I have over 3800 wins and there are alot of guys more played than me !
|
chessnovice
12/01/2007
00:33:26
[ report abuse ] | ...
Message:
Heh. I've been here five years and am only halfway there. I guess I play slow. :p
|
eqj2
12/01/2007
11:26:49
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
I am at 1000 wins even and 0 time-outs.
|
steverand67
12/01/2007
18:29:00
[ report abuse ] | Take 500 and multiply it by about 19...
Message:
gothicgirl
|
tag1153
12/01/2007
19:51:29
[ report abuse ] | Weird but true....
Message:
I reached the following ALL IN THE SAME WEEK.
Wins - 4000
Losses - 2900
Draws - 1100
Still no timeouts!
tag1153
PS - Fwiw - gothicgirl is not human. Anyone remember the movie 'Wargames' starring Matthew Broderick? You remember - the teenager who hacks into N.O.R.A.D looking for games and challenges the U.S. military supercomputer to thermonuclear war (and the computer thinks it's real). Once the computer, named "JOSHUA" (Julia), learned that nuclear war is pointless he (she) hacked into GameKnot and has been playing non-stop and without any breaks for the past 24 years. It seems chess causes less societal carnage than reigning down thermonuclear warheads, and is the only logical wargame to play. I spend an INSANE amount time on this site, and my stats pale in insignificance. Maybe Hollywood will want a sequel and call gothicgirl home, but until that time comes we must all continue to bow before her greatness.........
|
chessnovice
12/02/2007
00:46:25
[ report abuse ] | ...
Message:
I've enjoyed all the games I've been able to play against gothicgirl. But I agree that she has an unreal number of games behind her. I honestly think she plays more games within a year than I ever will in my entire lifetime.
|
dr_dread
12/02/2007
09:48:36
[ report abuse ] | I'm just the opposite....
Message:
I'm a fast player with an ave of 1 to 5 hours per move,but prefer playing much much less games.Playing too many games at one time is alot of fun and there is nothing wrong with that,however,what I notice is that players that take on,say 30 to 100 games at one time,tend to stagnate their rating,by getting more losses and/or draws instead of more wins because they simply did not find enough time to probe deeper into a position,and have to go on to the next game without burning out with mental exaustion.Take gothic girl for example or others,after thousands of games,look at the win/loss ratio.She is still at 1500+.I've played less than 100 games and i'm almost at 2200.I guarantee if i took on 50 games at a clip or more,i'd be losing alot more,and my rating would probably be around 2000.
Of course,if rating or getting to become a better player dosen't really concern the opponent,by slowing down and "smelling the roses",then just ignore everything I just said!
|
manhattan
12/03/2007
01:50:22
[ report abuse ] | 7000
Message:
i am going to reach that soon i hope :)
Janis
|
ironbutterfly
12/03/2007
07:44:52
[ report abuse ] | 6000
Message:
I'm coming up on 6000 this week ........
|
ganstaman
12/03/2007
09:01:10
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
I'm almost at 25 wins...
|
aurum025
12/06/2007
18:03:44
[ report abuse ] | Can anyone explain to me...
Message:
Why is it that many of players that have played upwards of a few thousand games have a rating graph that resembles a sine wave with huge peaks and troughs; whereas those who have played less than say 1000-2000 games dont seem to exhibit this?
|
chessnovice
12/06/2007
18:30:05
[ report abuse ] | ...
Message:
I'm sure that if you find someone who has played 1000 games over a long period of time, and look at their record over the entirety of their gaming "career", the graph would still be sinusoidal. The frequency would just be lower, because they are playing games less frequently.
|
tag1153
12/06/2007
20:53:08
[ report abuse ] | lol....
Message:
.....my ratings graph looks like an EKG monitor for a meth freak mid cardiac arrest:) Charging 360!!!!!! Clear!!!!!!!!!
tag1153
|
aurum025
12/07/2007
04:44:26
[ report abuse ] | My maths teacher was right...
Message:
We were doing all this trigonometry stuff in maths only a few weeks ago. and the questions often came up "What r we doing this (insert word of choice) for? theres no use for it in real life!!" off course our teacher proceeded to tell us about a whole plethora of ways we could use it in real life. He then said that almost everything in life was related to sine waves. Of course at the time no one payed much attention but now that I've seen some of your rating graphs I'm convinced!!!
|
nathanman22
12/07/2007
07:34:43
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
Any player is going to lose some and win some. The reason my chart is the way it is is very simple. It reflects my life...For instance the first dip in my chart was during a period of time when I was really busy, and I accidently timed out dropping my rank, hence the first drop. The second drop occurred after my girlfriend left me...this led to depression and another drop in rank. Generally, my rank is going up as I learn more--it doesn't matter how many dips it takes to get there--if I someday become a 2000+ player, I can chalk it up due to experience. Also, very simply put--the more games you play--the more you will lose--if you play very few games, you won't drop as much, because you aren't taking nearly as much of a risk.
-Nathanman22
|
dr_dread
12/07/2007
08:47:34
[ report abuse ] | let me add,as i said...
Message:
players that take on too many games like some players playing 100+ games,are at more of a risk of losing,not only out of just sheer # of games,but because there are only so many hours in a day and to search "deeper"into any individual game requires more time to analyze and thus,one that takes on a 100 games,simply will not have enough time to look at all those games deeply enough,especially against a player rated,say 100-200 points above you,to consistently have a much higher probability of winning or atleast drawing.While i'm sure there are "some exceptions"on this site for example,you will see that most players 2100 or above in rating,will have much less games playing at one time.I prefer no more than 10.There is very good reason for this.Playing less games,yes,will have any player lose less points if they lose,but the idea is to win more by having oneself being able to more closely examine a game,regardless of personal problems at home.I talked to a player recently that was playing over a 100 games at one time,had played over 1500 games in about a year and a half and was still at 1400 rating.I said to him...why don't you slow down a bit and look at your games more closely because your win/loss ratio was about 50/50 with very little,if any progress since he started playing on this site.He said..."i'd be "too bored" and I just had a bad year".Then he took offense telling me to mind my own business and that i was too much of an elitist,ect.I wrote back,well,sorry,just trying to make some suggestions,just incase you were interested in possibly winning alittle more,since for every step forward you are taking,you are taking one step back...
Personally,I don't care if a player could take on 1000 games at one time on this site,but if you want to just possibly get into the bigger league on this site,say 2100-2300,I suggest any player slow down a bit and smell the roses!
|
|
Post a reply to this message:
|
