Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Why do I suck (1500)?


  • 19 months ago · Quote · #41

    APawnCanDream

    Rasparovov wrote:
    KingsEye wrote:
    Rasparovov wrote:
    KingsEye wrote:
    Rasparovov wrote:
    KingsEye wrote:
    Rasparovov wrote:
    Scottrf wrote:
    Rasparovov wrote:

    1500 is 1700 USCF? Then I'm almost 2200 and that's not right.

    Not in online chess which is too high, blitz numbers are generally a good amount lower than USCF.

    Blitz USCF or standard time controls? Cus I'm one of those guys that suck at blitz compared to standard.

    Its blitz Chess.com rating to standard (OTB tournament controls is what I call it) USCF rating.

    That's a rather retarded formula then. It's just a very general idea of a persons rating that can vary by insane amounts.

    Actually the data backs it up well from what I've read and witnessed myself. Here is a link to one recent discussion on the matter (its long, you can skip to the relevent parts).

    Well the data also backs my formula that online chess is within 1000 rating of USCF. This is complete nonsense.

    Well if it does and its repeatable then you have a valid claim. I can't say many will care much about it, though. :)

    @Adam I'm interested in how you have such a high bullet rating but much lower blitz rating here. Do you move to fast (even for blitz) that opponents can capitalize on your errors more unlike in bullet?

    It's not valid, it's stupid. Who would care for such a stupid formula, blitz +200 is USCF, it's ridiculous.

    Thanks for sharing your opinion on the matter. :)

    @Adam I have a question, how often do you play in USCF tournaments?

  • 19 months ago · Quote · #42

    AdamRinkleff

    KingsEye wrote:

    @Adam I have a question, how often do you play in USCF tournaments?

    Not very often anymore. I'll probably go to the state tournament in May. I read something by Heisman who said that after you get to 17-1800 in standard otb, you should start playing a lot of blitz online, so that's what I've been doing here.

  • 19 months ago · Quote · #45

    AdamRinkleff

    Drawyah wrote:

    A key factor to self-improvement is to do two things, after every game played, find the opening and critical moment improvements... I checked your most recent game today, you were White, and the game started 1 d4 c5 2 d5 Nf6 3 c4 etc. Most of my opening books site 1..c5 as slightly inaccurate, and that 3 Nc3 is a strong response.

    Yah, lol, you gave me that same advice a year or two ago. I think its pretty sound, and pretty much defines what I do: every game I play, I look at it with the computer and try to figure out what I could have done better. I'm actually looking at that game right now with Houdini. I suppose the point of 3.Nc3 is to threaten 4.e4, whereas 3.c4 doesn't really do anything at all.

    Sometimes I wish there was some magical thing I could do to get better, like read some endgame book, or study some powerful tactical combination, but really I think the reality is exactly as you said: I just need to play more games, and learn from my mistakes. Its a slow process. : \

    Sometimes I use Houdini to beat Chessmaster, but I'm not sure that I actually learn anything from that. In theory, it should be instructive though.

  • 19 months ago · Quote · #46

    AdamRinkleff

    Look, everyone, after reading two posts from Keith Hayward I played this brilliant game! This is why he is the best chess coach ever.

  • 19 months ago · Quote · #47

    AdamRinkleff

    skinnypurpleducks wrote:

    that is not a 1300 ....

    It really happened! Lol. 6.b3???

  • 19 months ago · Quote · #48

    robobeer

    AdamRinkleff wrote:
    KingsEye wrote:

    @Adam I have a question, how often do you play in USCF tournaments?

    Not very often anymore. I'll probably go to the state tournament in May. I read something by Heisman who said that after you get to 17-1800 in standard otb, you should start playing a lot of blitz online, so that's what I've been doing here.

    Dan Heisman? I dont think I have ever heard him reccomend blitz.

  • 19 months ago · Quote · #49

    AdamRinkleff

    robobeer wrote

    Dan Heisman? I dont think I have ever heard him reccomend blitz.

    Yah, he said beginners should avoid blitz, until they learn to play at slower time controls. However, after they hit about 17-1800, they should start playing blitz, so they can get more experience with different positions and openings.

  • 19 months ago · Quote · #50

    Sunshiny

    Rasparovov wrote:
    Sunshiny wrote:
    Rasparovov wrote:
    Sunshiny wrote:
    VULPES_VULPES wrote:

    Well, according to your evaluation, AdamRinkleEff, that means I suck at chess.

    The truth hurts, doesn't it? Want a hug?

    But is that really the truth? I wouldn't say a 1700 online chess player here on chess.com sucks.

    It depends on how you look at it. If 1600 is avg., then 1500 would be a little below avg., while 1700 would be a little above. Then again, a 1700 still has much to learn, and could be considered a sucky player in one person's point of view. In another point of view, a 1700 might be making less obvious blunders and the word "suck" might not truly apply. Take an amateur boxer for example. This boxer would probably be better than the average person off the street in a boxing match. The boxer might even be very good against many of the opponent's faced in the arena. Now pit this boxer against a professional boxer in a ring. What does the audience see and think of this boxer?

    Well then it's certainly not the truth.

    It's more truth for the 1500 than the 1700.

  • 19 months ago · Quote · #51

    sapientdust

    AdamRinkleff wrote:
    robobeer wrote

    Dan Heisman? I dont think I have ever heard him reccomend blitz.

    Yah, he said beginners should avoid blitz, until they learn to play at slower time controls. However, after they hit about 17-1800, they should start playing blitz, so they can get more experience with different positions and openings.

    Heisman does recommend some blitz, for the reasons you give, but he definitely doesn't recommend playing "lots of blitz" (i.e., more blitz than standard slow games). For example, in The Four Homework Assignments, he recommends that you spend your chess time as follows:

    Play ~55% of your chess time; Study 45%:

    • Of the Play time, use 85-90% of your time to play long time control games slowly and 10-15% for speed games with the same increment as your important slow games. Play about 60% of your opponents slightly stronger than yourself, etc.
    • Of the Study time, use approximately 50% of your time doing appropriate level puzzles (tactics, positional, endgame), 30% instructive annotated games, 15% "other", and 5% learning opening tabiyas and looking up your openings
  • 19 months ago · Quote · #53

    AdamRinkleff

    sapientdust wrote:
    he definitely doesn't recommend playing "lots of blitz" (i.e., more blitz than standard slow games). For example, in The Four Homework Assignments...

    Yah, yah, but who is his target audience when he wrote that? People who still need to read stuff like "Novice Nook", etc, ie: beginners. However, somewhere on that huge site of his, he discusses the question of whether blitz is helpful or harmful, and he comes to the conclusion that its harmful for beginners, but helpful for more advanced players.

    He notes, echoing a similar essay by Larry Christiansen, that almost all grandmasters have played a lot of blitz. His conclusion is that beginners should avoid blitz, because it will reinforce bad habits, and they won't learn to think slowly. However, once you learn to think slowly, of course you shouldn't stop playing slow chess, but that shouldn't be your focus because it represents wasted energy. You'll never learn the different opening variations unless you sit down and play a LOT of blitz. This makes sense to me.

    In addition to Christiansen and Heisman, Keith Hayward and Bindi Cheng both said pretty much the same thing within this thread. At a certain point, if you want to get better, its a good idea to play a lot of blitz, but you need to make sure you analyze each game afterwards.

  • 19 months ago · Quote · #54

    cshao

    my blitz rating is 200 points higher than my USCF rating. why?

  • 19 months ago · Quote · #55

    AdamRinkleff

    Well, as Dan Heisman says, being good at blitz doesn't help you in standard time controls, if you don't know how to play slowly. In contrast, if you know how to think slowly, being good at blitz will help you play standard time controls.

    Considering that you've only played three tournaments in the past year, all of which were at quick time controls of 30-40 minutes, I think its clear you need more experience playing slow chess. Try entering a few tournaments with a time control like G120 or 90'30".

    For you, getting better at standard won't be a matter of learning tactics or strategy. You just need more mental discipline, in order to use your allotted time more effectively.

  • 19 months ago · Quote · #56

    sapientdust

    AdamRinkleff wrote:
    sapientdust wrote:
    he definitely doesn't recommend playing "lots of blitz" (i.e., more blitz than standard slow games). For example, in The Four Homework Assignments...

    Yah, yah, but who is his target audience when he wrote that? People who still need to read stuff like "Novice Nook", etc, ie: beginners. However, somewhere on that huge site of his, he discusses the question of whether blitz is helpful or harmful, and he comes to the conclusion that its harmful for beginners, but helpful for more advanced players.

    He notes, echoing a similar essay by Larry Christiansen, that almost all grandmasters have played a lot of blitz. His conclusion is that beginners should avoid blitz, because it will reinforce bad habits, and they won't learn to think slowly. However, once you learn to think slowly, of course you shouldn't stop playing slow chess, but that shouldn't be your focus because it represents wasted energy. You'll never learn the different opening variations unless you sit down and play a LOT of blitz. This makes sense to me.

    In addition to Christiansen and Heisman, Keith Hayward and Bindi Cheng both said pretty much the same thing within this thread. At a certain point, if you want to get better, its a good idea to play a lot of blitz, but you need to make sure you analyze each game afterwards.

    You're totally mistaken if you think only beginners read "Novice Nook", despite the inappropriate name, and no, I don't think he intended that advice to be solely for beginners.

    I think you're misremembering something you read or repeating what you heard from some secondary source. I've read most of what Dan has written, and I've never heard him recommend that people should focus on blitz and state that slow chess is "wasted energy" once you progress past a certain point and learn to "think slowly".

    He definitely does recommend playing some blitz, but what I disagree with is that he says blitz should be the focus and that slow chess is "wasted energy", as you're saying.

  • 19 months ago · Quote · #57

    AdamRinkleff

    sapientdust wrote:
    I think you're misremembering something you read or repeating what you heard from some secondary source.

    No, he was very clear. He reccomended slow chess for beginners, and blitz chess for those who had learned to play slow chess properly.

  • 19 months ago · Quote · #58

    Sunshiny

    AdamRinkleff wrote:
    sapientdust wrote:
    he definitely doesn't recommend playing "lots of blitz" (i.e., more blitz than standard slow games). For example, in The Four Homework Assignments...

    Yah, yah, but who is his target audience when he wrote that? People who still need to read stuff like "Novice Nook", etc, ie: beginners. However, somewhere on that huge site of his, he discusses the question of whether blitz is helpful or harmful, and he comes to the conclusion that its harmful for beginners, but helpful for more advanced players.

    He notes, echoing a similar essay by Larry Christiansen, that almost all grandmasters have played a lot of blitz. His conclusion is that beginners should avoid blitz, because it will reinforce bad habits, and they won't learn to think slowly. However, once you learn to think slowly, of course you shouldn't stop playing slow chess, but that shouldn't be your focus because it represents wasted energy. You'll never learn the different opening variations unless you sit down and play a LOT of blitz. This makes sense to me.


    In addition to Christiansen and Heisman, Keith Hayward and Bindi Cheng both said pretty much the same thing within this thread. At a certain point, if you want to get better, its a good idea to play a lot of blitz, but you need to make sure you analyze each game afterwards.

    Did he say the part i italicized, or are you saying this? I think it's untrue.

    Edit: Apparently, it's not working. I meant this: " You'll never learn the different opening variations unless you sit down and play a LOT of blitz. This makes sense to me."  

  • 19 months ago · Quote · #59

    waffllemaster

    AdamRinkleff wrote:

    Look, everyone, after reading two posts from Keith Hayward I played this brilliant game! This is why he is the best chess coach ever.

    This might have been tongue in cheek, and maybe I'm being too serious, but if you're taking the given advice to heart then this kind of game should feel like a total waste.  The advice to analyse after blitz games, with or without a computer, play long games, find ways to correct problems, etc all boils down to the advice "do some hard work"

    If you sit back and let houdini spit moves at you then you're not doing any work at all.  You have to think critically and second guess and find improvements.  During the game, after the game, whenever.  If houdidni gives you an odd move, then try to beat it.  Explore why it works, explore why your move doesn't work.  This is what makes you better.  Reading a book does nothing for you if you don't engage it.  Ask questions, think critically, take notes, work the exercises, whatever.  All the advice always boils down to put in some hard work and you'll improve. 

    Books, analysis, games, even getting a coach can all be done without working hard, and if that's the case you'll never see improvement.

  • 19 months ago · Quote · #60

    Rasparovov

    KingsEye wrote:
    Rasparovov wrote:
    KingsEye wrote:
    Rasparovov wrote:
    KingsEye wrote:
    Rasparovov wrote:
    KingsEye wrote:
    Rasparovov wrote:
    Scottrf wrote:
    Rasparovov wrote:

    1500 is 1700 USCF? Then I'm almost 2200 and that's not right.

    Not in online chess which is too high, blitz numbers are generally a good amount lower than USCF.

    Blitz USCF or standard time controls? Cus I'm one of those guys that suck at blitz compared to standard.

    Its blitz Chess.com rating to standard (OTB tournament controls is what I call it) USCF rating.

    That's a rather retarded formula then. It's just a very general idea of a persons rating that can vary by insane amounts.

    Actually the data backs it up well from what I've read and witnessed myself. Here is a link to one recent discussion on the matter (its long, you can skip to the relevent parts).

    Well the data also backs my formula that online chess is within 1000 rating of USCF. This is complete nonsense.

    Well if it does and its repeatable then you have a valid claim. I can't say many will care much about it, though. :)

    @Adam I'm interested in how you have such a high bullet rating but much lower blitz rating here. Do you move to fast (even for blitz) that opponents can capitalize on your errors more unlike in bullet?

    It's not valid, it's stupid. Who would care for such a stupid formula, blitz +200 is USCF, it's ridiculous.

    Thanks for sharing your opinion on the matter. :)

    @Adam I have a question, how often do you play in USCF tournaments?

    It's not an opinion it's a logic point of view.


Back to Top

Post your reply: