Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Playing many games doesn't improve rating


  • 20 months ago · Quote · #1

    peterdubec

    Hey guys,

    DISCLAIMER: I case, you take everything personally and/or agressive and/or you don't understand that I am looking for an advice from a player better than me, please skip this thread and don't respond.

    DISCLAIMER: I'd prefer to hear opinions from people rated at least 1800 in blitz/bullet. Sorry for being picky, but I learned that only good players can give good advice.

     

    I realized I'm not improving in chess and in the last 4 months my rating increased by only about 50 points (I'm a 1500).

    Could you please give me some advice as to what you did to get to your level? What books did you read? Is there a must-read for a player in a 1500-1700 category? I mean it's a little better than a beginner because he can distinguish the king from the queen :) but still it's on a lousy level.

     PS: I want to get better at chess in general. Not only blitz games.

    Thanks!

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #2

    Benedictine

    Congratulations for arrogance. Must be one of the most arrogant opening posts on the chess.com forums.

     



  • 20 months ago · Quote · #3

    Giacometti

    Study tactics.  Study tactics.  Study tactics.  Until you get to 1800.  It's as simple as that.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #4

    Benedictine

    HurricaneMichael1 wrote:
    Benedictine wrote:

    Congratulations for arrogance. Must be one of the most arrogant opening posts on the chess.com forums.

     



    I second that, for one thing I've been told by titled players, one is my FM coach, that bullet is bad, DO NOT PLAY IT! So if all someone can do is move pieces like lightning their not that good at chess. And you just plainly run your mouth.

    Yes, but it is not even that. You, like me, don't meet the 'disclaimer' for offering advice on this holy thread, but at the same time you are passing on FM and titled knowledge. Hey, that's incredible!!! You mean lower rated players can have something useful to say???

    Edit: oh and playing lots and lots of games and doing nothing with them doesn't improve your rating? Well, I wouldn't have thought of that.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #5

    discoweasel

    Posting in an arrogant thread.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #6

    Scottrf

    Can all you patzers stop posting.

    (I'm only posting to tell you to stop)

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #7

    unique1234567890

    Ban Bullets!

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #8

    beardogjones

    wtf?

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #9

    baddogno

    HurricaneMichael1 wrote:
    Scottrf wrote:

    Can all you patzers stop posting.

    (I'm only posting to tell you to stop)

    Will you shut up you old troll?

    This is the second thread I've read today where you've attacked someone for no reason.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're just having a bad day, but please stop.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #10

    TasmanianTiger

    Seriously? You are so narrow-minded for not wanted to take advice from lower ranked players, they just might have something to say. At one point in his career Bobby Fischer was under 1800. So advice was not good from him? 

    Learn to not be so narrow minded and arrogant. Shame on you.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #11

    TasmanianTiger

    I know right. A genius in bullet could be horrible...he just has awesome reflexes.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #12

    Scottrf

    That's not true.

    Someone with a very high bullet rating is a good chess player.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #13

    TasmanianTiger

    This is such a useless thread.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #14

    trysts

    Why can't someone wish to have higher rated people give them advice? Don't people look for coaches who are higher rated than them?

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #15

    Fingerly

    I hope you get the answer you seek.  I will be giving you an answer you didn't ask for.

    The others responding here are taking offense to your tone.  That's understandable, I think.  But they haven't addressed one of the main reasons your question is already flawed.  The idea that "only good players can give good advice" is wrong.

    It's true that trying to get better at chess by following the advice of other patzers would be a futile and misguided effort.  But many well-intentioned good players are notorious for providing advice that is either not useful, not suited for you, or plain bad.  Many chess books are best described as entertainment books, historical records or focused opening monographs rather than as instruction manuals.

    There is a mountain of chess books that have been written by great players from yesteryear and today that plainly lack instructional value.  I know this personally, because I have bought and read dozens upon dozens of chess books over the years that did little to teach.  I have also read a few gems that do what they promise.  I know the difference.  I wish I had found the instructive books first, but you can't always get what you want.

    Fred Reinfeld's work is a great example.  Most of his books are instructionally vacant, but entertaining nonetheless.  He had a few good ones, though--the "1001" tactics books are probably his best, IMO.  Kasparov's books were generally too short and thin on instructional value. Opening monographs are generally too focused on a few systems of a small set of possible games to be of great instructional value to mediocre players.  I could go on and on about this: I think it suffices to say that most chess books are written for money, for entertainment and for base beginners or near-masters rather than to instruct middling players.

    Another reason that your question is flawed touches on another subject I know something about: being a bullet-and-blitz player means your time management skill plays a big role in determining your rating.  An honest assessment of your "true rating" would have to take into account what percentage of your games are won or lost on time.  Chess.com doesn't keep those stats for you.  Nor does it judge how often you are winning lost games on time, or losing won games on time.  

    If a third of your games end on time, and two thirds of those games are games you won, and half the games you won on time were won from an inferior position, it's fair to say your rating is inflated.  But without the stats, it's up to you to be honest with yourself regarding any assessment of  the quality of your moves and plans in speed chess.  There are no books out there that address this aspect of internet chess in a meaningful way that I know of, and there shouldn't be one, IMO.

    One way to get a better rating would be to go to another site where blitz and bullet ratings are higher across the board.  You might be a 2000-rated player on chesscube.  But that doesn't mean you would be a 2000-rated player in OTB tournaments--not at all.  Really, switching sites doesn't work--it would be a cheap fix and an unrewarding one.

    I'm inclined to agree with other players here who suggest that those who are serious about improving should concentrate on slower time controls.  Blitz and bullet are fun and satisfying, but it isn't real thinking chess.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #16

    Benedictine

    The others responding here are taking offense to your tone.  That's understandable, I think.  But they haven't addressed one of the main reasons your question is already flawed.  The idea that "only good players can give good advice" is wrong.

    Well I did when I said this:

    You, like me, don't meet the 'disclaimer' for offering advice on this holy thread, but at the same time you are passing on FM and titled knowledge. Hey, that's incredible!!! You mean lower rated players can have something useful to say???

    I also think this was pretty obvious that many others thought the same as well.

    However, it is possible that the OP didn't mean such offence and didn't really think things through, so maybe we shouldn't be so quite harsh to pass judgment?

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #17

    Fingerly

    Honestly, I started writing my long post before most of the responses appeared, including yours.  Acknowledged.  My apologies.  ;-)

    And I agree, the OP doesn't deserve that much grief.  Maybe just a little.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #18

    Fingerly

    Funny!  I deserved that.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #19

    Giacometti

    uhohspaghettio wrote:
    Giacometti wrote:

    Study tactics.  Study tactics.  Study tactics.  Until you get to 1800.  It's as simple as that.

    I really hope this is supposed to be a joke... 

    Why would this be a joke?  1800 OL = 1500 USCF.  Below 1500 USCF the best way to get better is to improve your board vision and calculating ability...which means study tactics.  It's not rocket science?

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #20

    cabadenwurt

    [COMMENT DELETED]

Back to Top

Post your reply: