2200 is your goal, eh? 
Yes , I think it gets annoying too.
Chess Now Refuted?!
Sort:
Luckily I never have to face e4 because I abort whenever I get black
Yeah, people can be stupid.
I on the other hand, will become a GM. I've only played 2 games on here and I'm already at 1201! That's like halfway!
True GMs don't use coaches. It's natural.
You mean "remotely high", right?
"If you didn't learn to play chess as a young child,the chances of you becaming a GM are slim to none."
How sad. I did learn to play chess as a young child, but I can hardly believe that will somehow take me from 1400 to GM.
Seriously, I'm so sick of being stuck in this 1400 trap I'll be happy if I can improve to 1700-1800. Seems reasonable, right?
frrixz wrote:
"If you didn't learn to play chess as a young child,the chances of you becaming a GM are slim to none."
How sad. I did learn to play chess as a young child, but I can hardly believe that will somehow take me from 1400 to GM.
You probs need to read that line again. He didn't say that anyone who learnt chess as a child is GM material. Merely that anyone who has a reasonable shot at achieving that kind of rating, will almost certainly have learnt chess as a young child. The inverse of that statement is obviously not true as you reasonably point out.
binkpits wrote:
frrixz wrote:
"If you didn't learn to play chess as a young child,the chances of you becaming a GM are slim to none."
How sad. I did learn to play chess as a young child, but I can hardly believe that will somehow take me from 1400 to GM.
You probs need to read that line again. He didn't say that anyone who learnt chess as a child is GM material. Merely that anyone who has a reasonable shot at achieving that kind of rating, will almost certainly have learnt chess as a young child. The inverse of that statement is obviously not true as you reasonably point out.
I know. Necessity with no promise of sufficiency.
2200ismygoal wrote:
After e4 you can resign.
1.e4 is cheating.
Discussions like "en passant is cheating" and "stalemate shouldn't be a draw" are even worse.
RoseQueen1985 wrote:
^ well if you've been playing chess since childhood, and you are still 1400s,then something is seriously wrong. By experience alone you should be past 1800.
It honestly depends on how you view the game and how much effort you put into it. If it's just a game for you and it's more of a social thing,you will never improve. If you are serious about it,with a few lessons and tactical training it is not too hard to reach the 1600s or even 1700s.
It always amazes me when I meet people who are like 50 something and they say something like "I've been playing chess for 40 years!" and they have ratings of 1300.Obviously something is not right.
I think "what's wrong" is they've been playing the game as a trivial distraction and a social endeavor, instead of as a life-consuming black hole of time.
Anyone who's been playing for 40 years, and is still a rank amateur, is doing something very, very right. Good for them for having their priorities in order.
2200ismygoal wrote: As for you people between the ages of 15 and 30, the chance of you ever becoming a GM let alone an IM is highly remote
Oh, darn :( I suppose your right though..... instead of IM my new goal is CM!
On a more serious note, the kinds of threads you mentioned do seem to have a habit of coming back with offspring :P
I've nearly refuted 1. e4??
However the variation 1. e4?? g6!!!!!!! 2. Ke2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Is a forced draw in 231 moves.
I was waiting to see if anybody else would notice this...
Nethinim wrote:
Yeah, people can be stupid.
I on the other hand, will become a GM. I've only played 2 games on here and I'm already at 1201! That's like halfway!
lol
frrixz wrote:
"If you didn't learn to play chess as a young child,the chances of you becaming a GM are slim to none."
How sad. I did learn to play chess as a young child, but I can hardly believe that will somehow take me from 1400 to GM.
Seriously, I'm so sick of being stuck in this 1400 trap I'll be happy if I can improve to 1700-1800. Seems reasonable, right?
There may be ways to improve when stuck in a rating trap without much study. The rating trap is probably do to you being "trapped" in some part of your chess skill.
A lot of players get trapped at a certain rating because they have trapped themselves in a certain way of playing. They never innovated, they play the same thing all the time and that is what traps them. You cant improve if you do the same thing all the time.
I once read an article or post about this and well I sorta found myself in it. I used to always play what I thought was solid chess, mostly going into closed positions and stuff because I thought that was better, wouldn't really deviate from it. After I read that article/post, I told myself "I'm done with this sh*t" and decided to change it. I'd would play this and that, deviate a lot. This definitely helped me enhance my game. While I was doing that, my style of play totally changed. I started playing fun, attacking chess full of flair (heck, I even played the danish gambit for a month, I even do occasionally today!), the opposite of my "solid", closed chess that I played before. And guess what? I improved! I improved a lot, probably by several hundred points. Now I'm able to beat 2000+ rated FIDE players (even a piece down!) though in 10 min blitz, I've never had the opportunity to play classical chess, hopefully I will soon. There aren't many (open) classical tournaments where I live, only several a year in a 2-3 hour driving radius and usually when I have other obligations :(.
I'm gonna stop now before this turns into a post of me bragging about how I improved (lets call it inspirative talk), but if you do think you are trapped in your style of play, I suggest you start deviating! You r rating might not jump up immediately, but it will soon enough!
The problem is to find out which openings can be played at what rating levels and at what time scales. But if one can find out an original strong line (even with the help of computer), that helps always.
http://chessthinkingsystems.blogspot.com/
Well I liked 'a life consuming black hole of time'. Maybe you should give up chess and take up writing science fiction I think you may have a flare for it.
A rating trap is a thing in the players imagination. Ratings are real they reflect your ability you cannot get around them unless you play better. You may not be able to play better for many reasons, some of which are unplalatable. Here are a few to be unwillingly digested.
1) Not enough ability from the start.
2) Lack of time.
3) Plenty of time but lack of will to change.
4) overestimating opposition (a big stepping stone of my past)
5) time management (probably one of my bigger current stepping stones, always in time trouble)
6) lack of decent opponents (Fritz may exist nowadays, but in my opinion computers, just don't play like humans)
7) lack of innovation (I mean stubborn_donkeys point)
After e4 you can resign. But seriously I am tired of all these people posting that certain openings are busted. As for Fischer vs Kasparov or Karpov it never happened nor will it every happen so please enough with the who was better thread. I'm trolling I know but I'm tired of every 1600 rated player saying that something is busted. As for you people between the ages of 15 and 30, the chance of you ever becoming a GM let alone an IM is highly remote so stop asking how you can go from 1300 to GM, it won't happen.