Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

th


  • 3 years ago · Quote · #1

    Ruy1Lopez

    [COMMENT DELETED]

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #2

    Here_Is_Plenty

    Two words:  Dream on.  Very few people have what it takes to make master strength.  I for one am not one of them.  Concentrate on enjoying the game, not setting work-style targets for yourself.  This is, after all, a game.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #3

    Here_Is_Plenty

    Blood, I am 1820, you are 1679 - do you think either of us has master potential?  Have you ever played against a master, watched one of them play live or read their analysis?  Having done all of those I am confident, not happy about it but still certain, that I will never be a master.  If you really feel you can then keep reaching for the rainbow, I am not trying to be a troll.  The point of my first post was to concentrate on enjoying the game rather than trying to do something I feel is not possible for mid-range players.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #4

    Ruy1Lopez

    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • 3 years ago · Quote · #5

    Ruy1Lopez

    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • 3 years ago · Quote · #6

    Here_Is_Plenty

    Ruy1Lopez wrote:

    Hi Here_Is_Plenty

     

    sorry, i do not want to insult you, but your statement has no value. This is no help but counterproductive. Right, it  should be fun. But why no target`s?

    Ciao


     Okay you say my statement has no value.  You do not play club chess.  Computer sites have over-inflated rating values - to be 1850 on one does not make you 1850 in the real chess world.  Also there are many stages of chess ability.  The difference between an 1850 and a 2000 is usually quite profound, as is the jump from 2000 to 2200 and so on.  Taking aside the basic fact that I do not think you appreciate how many levels of improvement you would have to punch through, let us look again instead at what you would require to be able to do.  Can you think 5 or more moves deep in your head and still assess positionally what is happening?  Do you know standard endgame positions inside-out?  Do you have a deep knowledge of openings and the theories behind those openings?

    What you do have is the capacity to play the game, enjoy it and see how much you improve naturally.  This is what I am suggesting.  If you really had the potential to be a 2500+ player you would almost certainly know by now.

    And no matter how you put it, to say my statement had no value is always going to be insulting.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #7

    forrie

    Read the articles by IM Jeremy Silman here on chess.com. He said one can become master even at the age of 50. He gives a lot of tips for how to improve.

    http://www.chess.com/daily-columns.html

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #8

    shoop2

    Play a master (NM, not IM or GM) sometime.  They make mistakes.  I can go through every game I've lost against a master and pinpoint my mistakes and his; that doesn't mean I can play as well as them OTB now, but it means they're not invulnerable by any means, and if I work at it I can learn to beat them.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #9

    KyleMayhugh

    There are levels of master well below 2500 strength. He didn't say "grandmaster."

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #10

    Elubas

    A master is not god. With a lot of hard work, if you're already 1900 then master is very feasible, though not easy. Masters are very good, but don't let the name fool you; they have lots of holes. Their play is starting to look professional, but not quite; above all, they are very strong practical players to be able to win games at that level.

    The biggest advice I can give you is to work really, really hard on your weaknesses. Whatever it is, you will greatly, greatly improve if you look at each part of your game objectively and critically.

    How to do that? Tell me your weaknesses and I might be able to muster an answer.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #11

    Here_Is_Plenty

    True he did not say GM.  My point still stands.  To make it to master you have to play or study for 5-8 hours per day and even then you need a good level of natural talent.  Again, he is effectively unprepared if he does not play club chess - a website rating of 1850 means little.  What I have been trying to say repeatedly is play for fun and see what happens.  I have been playing for 33 years, casual only for many of them, studying for some - no title would be worth the enjoyment chess can give if played for fun.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #12

    Elubas

    It's a perfectly valid opinion, hereisplenty, but not an incontrovertible one. I argue that getting better at chess can help one appreciate the finer points lurking in this mysterious game, and in turn make it more satisfying and fun to play. Maybe it's a good goal to strive for; and maybe it's fun simultaneously. Ultimately, how much one is willing to work is up to the person.

    Now, getting to grandmaster would be far-fetched for most people; master is merely challenging and demanding.

    EDIT: Wait, he meant 1900 online rating? Uh oh Laughing

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #13

    philidor_position

    OK, first you need to compare your servers' ratings with FIDE ratings, if that's possible. Usually online ratings are much, much higher, around 200~300 points. The only reliable ratings I saw online were at FICS.

    Then, you just need to keep ways of improving. You'll hit SO many walls in the process, you just need to identify the problem successfully, isolate it if possible, and work on it.

    "Musts" of the process: rigorous tactics training, serious analysis of GM games (not just half-heartedly going-through the moves), playing a lot of slow games & analyzing them in detail.

    I'm obviously not a master, but we share the same goal, and this is just the recipe I'm trying to apply to myself.

    @ here is plenty: I think you're overestimating masters. I would completely agree with your statements if we were talking about IMs or GMs, but masters are not "rainbows." Even experts can give them a good game sometimes. 

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #14

    rockpeter

    I'm rated 1150 on average but I am master of my domain.  So there.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #15

    heinzie

    master strength, or master-level rating, there is a small difference

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #16

    nxavar

    My way to go when it comes to impovement is to apply theory in all your games and each and every move. Theory meaning the suggested way of playing in various positions. From then on it's a matter of how much you can digest and what level of concentration you can attain.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #17

    ak87

    I have improved 300 points over about 14 months. I started playing at 1400 and worked my way up to 1700. i have taken down a few experts and many class A players. I have to credit chesstempo.com's tactic training for the most part. Chess mentor has on here has helped with opening principles, positional play and some endgame theory appropriate for my level. When I was at 1400 I knew I could get at 1600 but at that time they were kicking my ass. So I put 250 hours of tactic training over a few months and I came back to see my rating soar to over 1600 and eventually over 1700. Now I play a 1900 player and it feels like playing a 1600 player a year ago when I was rated 1400. From what I have read, the key to hitting 2000 or boarderline class A expert is tactics and tactics alone. As a class A you need to have mastered all the basic positional and opening principles and start getting good at one or two particular openings with both black and white.

    I will suggest you go on chesstempo.com (free acount) and do the tactics problems till your rating there soars over 2000 blitz and over 2100 standard time controls. (there are FMs on the site who have similar - maybe slightly higher -  tactic's ratings). Tactics is key because it is hard to improve but it is also a very solid knowledge once gained. Positional play can be learned way easier with a master level instructor. Also tactics alone will improve your positional play once you start seeing patterns which make tactics possible; positional patterns that you can create to  put your opponent in hot water due to tactical hits or ones you need to avoid in order not to allow your opponent tactical shots.

    Bottom line: it's feasible, you can probably do it with a lot of work.

    I know I can get to 1850 which is my next goal and I will put the time and get there. But first I would suggest you try to set a realistic goal like becoming a strong expert, then aim for higher.

    And don't let anyone tell you you can't :)

    Regards

    AK87

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #18

    DylanAM

    ak87 wrote:

    And don't let anyone tell you you can't :)

    Regards

    AK87


    Hear, hear.  Good words.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #19

    Steinar

    To the OP:

    If I understand your post correctly, you have only played chess online. If this is true, my advice is: Join a real chess club, play some tournaments, get to know players and have some fun. Then see about setting yourself goals!

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #20

    waffllemaster

    Here_Is_Plenty wrote:

    Blood, I am 1820, you are 1679 - do you think either of us has master potential?  Have you ever played against a master, watched one of them play live or read their analysis?  Having done all of those I am confident, not happy about it but still certain, that I will never be a master.  If you really feel you can then keep reaching for the rainbow, I am not trying to be a troll.  The point of my first post was to concentrate on enjoying the game rather than trying to do something I feel is not possible for mid-range players.


    Take any world champion and catch them before they've been playing a year and they'll be well under master level.  You're not born into a playing strength, everyone has to work up to it.  If you're 1800 after 10 years of regular tournament play, then yes, it's unlikely you'll ever be a master.  But a current rating by itself doesn't have anything to do with your potential.

    The OP seems to have just played online for fun, so he's not maxed out by any stretch of the imagination.


Back to Top

Post your reply: