Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Why do I suck (1500)?


  • 20 months ago · Quote · #61

    Scottrf

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

    They aren't exclusive, it is an opinion.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #62

    AdamRinkleff

    waffllemaster wrote:

    If you sit back and let houdini spit moves at you then you're not doing any work at all.

    Just because I use a computer doesn't mean I don't think about it.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #63

    waffllemaster

    AdamRinkleff wrote:
    waffllemaster wrote:

    If you sit back and let houdini spit moves at you then you're not doing any work at all.

    Just because I use a computer doesn't mean I don't think about it.

    Of course not.  And I'm sure >99% of us use computers to help analyse.  I was just making a point.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #64

    sapientdust

    AdamRinkleff wrote:
    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.

    I emailed Dan Heisman to see if he knew what you might have read, and he couldn't remember having written anything like what you say you read. He stated that his views on this topic are well-represented by points 1, 3, 4, and 5 in the following Novice Nook article: Getting the Edge.

    Those points of advice are as follows (but see the article for further discussion on these):

    1) The advice: Review each of your games, identifying opening (and other) mistakes with the goal of not repeatedly making the same mistake.

    3) The advice: Play as many very slow games as possible (where the game is played with a clock, and each player has at least one hour to complete the game).

    4) The advice: Use about ten percent of playing time for fast games.

    5) The advice: Play fast games with the same increment as in meaningful games.

    As you can see, he obviously doesn't believe that slow games are wasted energy after a point or that one should focus on blitz, so you should stop quoting Dan Heisman as saying "advanced players" should focus more on blitz and that slow chess is wasted energy, unless you can actually dig up a source. He offered to discuss it with you if you care to call or skype him (contact info), so I think it's fair for me to invoke Occam's razor at this point and conclude that you simply misinterpreted what Heisman said or confused Heisman with somebody else entirely.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #65

    AdamRinkleff

    sapientdust wrote:

    so you should stop quoting Dan Heisman as saying "advanced players" should focus more on blitz

    No, I know what I read. He has written a lot, I wouldn't expect him to have memorized every article he ever wrote. I certainly don't remember everything I've written.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #66

    TitanCG

    All I can suggest is to try and find trends in the games you're losing. If you can do that then you'll at least know what to work on.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #67

    AdamRinkleff

    At lower levels, its easy to be like, "You should learn this endgame or you need to work on basic tactics..." but at a certain point it just comes down to playing lots of games and analyzing them afterwards. I think that's the value of blitz, once you gain enough experience, because (as FM Hayward said) it gives you "volume of material" for study and analysis.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #68

    Rasparovov

    Scottrf wrote:

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

    They aren't exclusive, it is an opinion.

    The formula is random, it's not an opinion cus it's true.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #69

    Sunshiny

    AdamRinkleff wrote:
    sapientdust wrote:

    so you should stop quoting Dan Heisman as saying "advanced players" should focus more on blitz

    No, I know what I read. He has written a lot, I wouldn't expect him to have memorized every article he ever wrote. I certainly don't remember everything I've written.

    I believe the burden of proof is now on you. Actually, it always has been on you, but now the opposing party had done the work.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #70

    sapientdust

    AdamRinkleff wrote:
    sapientdust wrote:

    so you should stop quoting Dan Heisman as saying "advanced players" should focus more on blitz

    No, I know what I read. He has written a lot, I wouldn't expect him to have memorized every article he ever wrote. I certainly don't remember everything I've written.

    Whether Heisman has memorized every article he ever wrote is not relevant. The better question is whether he would remember recommending something that is the opposite of what he actually believes and has written about in many other places.

    Regardless of what you think you read though, it's clear that he does not believe playing more blitz than slow chess is a good strategy for chess improvement.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #71

    AdamRinkleff

    Sunshiny wrote:

    I believe the burden of proof is now on you. Actually, it always has been on you, but now the opposing party had done the work.

    There is no burden of proof. I said I read something by Heisman, and you don't believe me. Do you think I care? Do I have any vested interest in you? Does it concern me at all what you think? No. I know better than to waste my time on the internet, arguing with morons. I'm sorry you lack the intellectual capacity to understand this concept, but I'm really not interested in helping you.

    If you want to pretend that Heisman has some old-fashioned and absurd hatred of blitz, that is fine with me. You can run along and believe whatever you want.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #72

    AndyClifton

    AdamRinkleff wrote:
    I know better than to waste my time on the internet, arguing with morons.

    Ah yes, case in point.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #73

    AdamRinkleff

    AndyClifton wrote:

    Ah yes, case in point.

    I'm not the one who comes to other people's threads and starts arguing with the original poster. That's you. You are the troll. Go home, you are not capable of constructive dialogue.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #74

    AndyClifton

    I am home.  You're the one in North Korea.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #75

    AdamRinkleff

    AndyClifton wrote:

    I am home.  You're the one in North Korea.

    Are you done trolling yet?

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #76

    AndyClifton

    Nope.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #77

    Sunshiny

    AdamRinkleff wrote:
    Sunshiny wrote:

    I believe the burden of proof is now on you. Actually, it always has been on you, but now the opposing party had done the work.

    There is no burden of proof. I said I read something by Heisman, and you don't believe me. Do you think I care? Do I have any vested interest in you? Does it concern me at all what you think? No. I know better than to waste my time on the internet, arguing with morons. I'm sorry you lack the intellectual capacity to understand this concept, but I'm really not interested in helping you.

    If you want to pretend that Heisman has some old-fashioned and absurd hatred of blitz, that is fine with me. You can run along and believe whatever you want.

    I'll take that as no, you can't prove what you said. 

    Your ad hominem only weakens your stance, but i won't let that detract from the main point of you not having proof.

    Strawman. I've never said Heisman has an old-fashioned and absurd hatred of blitz. Others have said that Heisman recommends 10% of study time be dedicated to blitz or something along that line.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #78

    AndyClifton

    Uh-oh, "ad hominem" and "strawman" in one post.  Those critical thinking seminars are mining some rich veins for sure.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #79

    Abhishek2

    Rasparovov wrote:
    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.

    people don't usually try as hard here as they do OTB.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #80

    uberdav

    Forget intelligence but break out the bell curve.  Ever play 10+ games with someone at one sitting?  What invariably happens is one player has a quicker learning curve than the other and even though the first few games might be split evenly, the last games will go to the player with the best adaptability.  The point being as you rise in the ratings and you start playing better players, you will be playing with people who adapt to your play.  Check your game history.  It took you about 15-20 games to get from 1200 to 1300 but it took 100 or more to get to 1400 and almost 2000 games more to get to 1500.  Kind of like an inverse black hole.  The closer you approach, the slower your rise in ratings.  Why?  because you aren't playing a computer but a wide collection of humans who get better and better as you rise in the ratings.  Try this little trick as an experiment, set your opponents rating settings at 1200min, 1200 max...so essentially you will be playing almost exclusively brand new players to chess.com.  You will pretty much mop through everybody but the boredom will set in, especially as you realize each victory keeps yielding you less and less points, and the occasional loss you suffer hurts you terribly, setting you back several victories.  Kinda like when the South Park kids were playing World of Warcraft and they went off in the woods to fight orcs or wolves or whatever it was they fought.  Now imagine if each wolf they kill was worth less and less points.  The key here is your commitment.  I decided a long time ago to NOT play chess professionally even though I was possibly skilled enough to at least give it a bit of a go at the entry level tourneys.  Before I get a bunch of flack due to my anemic rating on chess.com, realize I play while at my coffee shop where my time is split and if someone comes in and orders a few drinks then my time expires before I can make the drinks.  Read books!!!  Copabanca's Primer is mind blowing, someon really needs to update those examples to alpha-numeric from the descriptive notation.  Also read biographical material on chess players, what they do in tournaments.  Spassky lost to Fischer because Fischer was better BUT Spassky also didn't follow a good regimen before and during the tournament.  Another experiment, don't eat for a full day and then try to play.  Wow, you've never played worse in your life.  There is no magic bullet.  You need to be sound of mind and body and you need to have the time and inclination to play at an advanced level only reached by 10% or 1% or .1% of the population.  As with any difficult endeavour in life, you need to commit 110% to it.  Who is the best golfer in the world?  Then why did he have a few years where he couldn't play very well at all.  Just one example of how distractions can keep you from being as good as you would like to be.  Perhaps this isn't the most elegant treatise on the subject but this is just off the top of my head.  I didn't go into depth re: all the topics I brought up but remember the words of Peter Gabriel...'D.I.Y.'  You've got access to how to get better.  This site kicks the bejeezus out of any other chess site and I've been playing online since ICC.com on dialup (if that means anything to you).  Oh and a message to all you bashers and insulters and trash talkers, ummm, I pity the amount of time you spend in your life breaking people down.     


Back to Top

Post your reply: