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.
Why do I suck (1500)?
Well, that was a veritable word tower...
Uh-oh, "ad hominem" and "strawman" in one post. Those critical thinking seminars are mining some rich veins for sure.
"Rich veins...?" Is that another way of calling me a fat-ass? I knew the salesperson lied when i asked how these jeans made me look!
Actually, your pic doesn't make you look fat at all. Unlike mine...
Have you looked at my base? It's the jeans, i tell ya!
Okay, so maybe you do have a little bit of shelf booty. But try having your head be the widest part of your body sometime (it's hell, I tell ya).
You have a point there. I was about to go on about the shine on my hairless head, but the dark rings around your eyes take the cake.
Yeah, it was a lot more fun getting them than it is having them.
http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=446535002
In that game 12fxg3 would've been wiser:
or before it.
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.