14103 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
According to this piece from Freakonomics.com, the answer is "apparently!"
Of course, this is large-scale and does not necessarily apply to all of us. ;)
Well I, for one, am certainly not getting any better at it
"This article was definitely not written by a chess player."
There is a Kenneth W. Regan listed on the USCF website with a 2428 rating. BTW Regan and his co-author created formulas to measure certain parameters, which he labels s (skill) and c (consistancy). Then he compared the values, not the ratings. He also posed two other questions besides the two in the freak article. Interesting stuff.
Loved it... someone remind me to talk about this on ChessTV please...
Sometimes, I think I'm actually getting worse at chess!
I'm achieive varyingly tolerable adaptations to chess-like modalities, depending on sleep, stress, alertness, distractions, cats that jump on me and think they own me and the monitor, phone calls, etc...
I'm pretty sure that after the thousands of games I've played here that when I do have to sit down in front of some halfway decent player in the 1200-1400 range I have a fairly decent chance of winning. Which is better then when I joined chess.com.
Chess is objective, in that whether someone wins or loses is unmistakeable.
In the case of the chess opening, that objective progress takes place is undeniable: today, we know things about the Nimzo-Indian Defense, for example, that no one knew 150 years ago.
But when it comes to chess in general, it is also true. Progress may be slow compared to the exciting pace of rapid progress in some technological fields: but it is because Wilhelm Steinitz and others showed people a more effective way to play chess that the Modern school remained ascendant, despite all the pining and nostalgia for the more exciting days of the Romantic era with dashing piece sacrifices and the rest.
There are many people who could write a book about everything they don't know about chess.
Kenneth Reagen is an International Master. I have met him, and actually see him at tournaments I go to occasionally!
If this is true, the implications are huge! Like many, I have noticed that the ratings of the great players are somewhat lower than those of the players in the present. But I just assumed it was all due to inflation! If it isn't, that says a lot! Unless of course it's all due to opening theory lol.
Queen or Two Rooks
by wu1010 a few minutes ago
Is Chess really declining in popularity?
by AndyClifton a few minutes ago
what the #$%^was he playing and how did he win?
by Idrinkyourhealth a few minutes ago
If You were Doing Life Which 5 Books Would You Keep To Make Your game Strong?
by Conquistador a few minutes ago
Best Opening without a doubt.
by PatzerEternal a few minutes ago
"Win on Time"?
by ChessDragonX a few minutes ago
Is it agaisnt the rules so delay games?
by Lou-for-you 2 minutes ago
12/6/2013 - Mate in 8
by Bryan681972 7 minutes ago
Can Anyone Become Grandmaster?
by chess_gg 7 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!