Regionalism and ratings
In my chess career, usually I haven’t traveled too far out of the local area to play in tournaments, maybe at most 25 mi (40 km). While living in Waco, 95% of rated games were against central Texans and 70% against Wacoans, and Miami opponents have been 100% in the Miami/Ft. Lauderdale area.
While living here, I’ve felt like my understanding of the game has improved, but my results have been worse. This may well indicate some kind of delusion. On the other hand, reviewing overall results incidates this may not be the case:
Texas (5 years ago): Even against class B’s.
Miami (current): Have not achieved even score against B’s.
Texas (current): Destroyed an A player who pwned me 5 years ago, was up the exchange against another (but blundered).
Granted, this is based on one player’s small sample size, but I’m wondering what other players’ experiences have been. It’s not merely that Miami has stronger players, but a 1200 in Miami seems equal to a 1400 in Waco (and maybe Houston, but I haven’t played enough games to be sure).
Players like GM Julio Becerra and IM Blas Lugo live in Miami, who undoubtedly raise the level of chess here. In Waco, the resident expert was, well, an Expert who occasionally sandbagged into A territory to get into the U2000 section of some out-of-area tournaments. That difference has to count for something.
Maybe with improved understanding you have been more willing to take risks and try interesting ideas than you were before? A style change can make you’r rating lower even if it is for the better i think, but it should eventually pick back up.
Re-reading games or lessons that have helped me in the past help me to re-use solid thinking practices in chess after I have stopped using them for a while for some reason.
Reply to l3rucewayneMethinks that part of good chess is understanding a variety of positions. I have a friend who plays at a particular club where everyone plays the Vienna. Now whether you can say there’s a “regional” pocket with skewed ratings there, I cannot say, but if you only play at that club and you only see Viennas, seems like you’d be in a pickle when you go to the World Open and encounter a Ruy.
re: Sandbagging – I just don’t get it. I spend my hours desparately trying to NOT fall back below 2000. If you’re in it for money, chess probably wasn’t the right choice to begin with.
Reply to Derek SlaterI think there are differences in relative strength from one area to another. I even see it just from playing in NYC versus playing in Westchester County. I also see it when watching kids from the ‘burbs come down to NYC to play in tournaments. Some of the kids who mop up in scholastic tournaments in the ‘burbs get their butts kicked by the city kids.
In NYC there are so many choices so the competition is more varied. I think there are more opportunities to play stronger competition in a large city like New York. I imagine the competition in Miami was stronger then what you faced in Waco. I have found that players from larger metro areas tend to have lower ratings so it seems like a 1200 is actually 1400 strength. I guess in smaller areas it’s the big fish in the little pond syndrome.
Reply to Polly@l3rucewayne: Interestingly, it feels like I’ve been more conservative recently. Maybe more accurately, I may take risks and sacrifice material, but now I only do so with a specific plan in mind, so it feels less risky.
@Derek: The Vienna? Might be fun if it gets into that pseudo-Muzio gambit. Even so, it seems seeing only one opening all the time would be horrible for complete chess development.
On the ‘bagger: He was in chess for the women.
@Polly: That makes a lot of sense. With a well-traveled person’s experiences as corroborration, I need no longer feel that my perceptions are mere delusions.
Reply to DonnieIn Chess for the women? OH. You mean in chess to get distracted by women. In that case, it’d be something like what Jeff Foxworthy said, where it’s like buying a 747 for the peanuts
Reply to Allen