Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Rating 2000


  • 2 years ago · Quote · #61

    Tmb86

    TexAg06 wrote:

    It's all a matter of opinion.  Someone that just learns the game considers a 1400 player very good.  But years ago, Kasparov said (I don't remember the exact quote) that there were about 5 people on the planet that truly understood chess, the rest were just woodpushers.

    Perspective.

    Are you sure you're not thinking of Sir Arthur Eddington's response to being asked whether it was true that only 3 people in the world understand general relativity - 'who's the third?'

    'Good and bad' are too absolute for chess, I prefer 'better and worse'. I am better than some people, I am worse than others. I have got better since I started playing, I am worse than I (hopefully) will be in the future. Of course, that doesn't stop IM Pfren telling me how bad I am.

    Anyway, to what extent does any particular rating continues to represent a particular level of play over time? Surely inflation or deflation (as well as your own improvement) will just mean you have to continually redefine what you call a 'good' rating.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #62

    bigmac30

    where i come from 170 is about 2000 they cam attack and defend consistently well and don't give anything away cheaply when you get to 190 200 grade then it's a stedp up in class again so 2000 is bigining of stong

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #63

    Scottrf

    Beckyschess wrote:

    A problem always develops when you decide to equate a numerical rating with a language description. For a moment lets forget about chess. What is meant when we listen to someone sing or play the piano and say that person is a good singer or good piano player? Some people in the audience may think that person is a good singer and some may think they dont care for what there hearing. If enough people like the singing then the person is a good singer. 

    Suppose there was a chess match going on and a crowd of people where watching the two people. Lets also suppose that no one in the crowd has the slightest idea of what there elo rating is. People watching the game would still non the less form opinions about the skill level of the players.  If the majority of people watching where thinking that one or both of the  players where playing quite well then they would form the assumption at least based on this one game that they where good players. 

    There is no specific number that goes with good. At best we form a very arbitrary standard to associate with the word good as a kind of generic model , but in reality each person has such an individualistic idea of words that we use to describe things and one cannot draw any true meaning from them , except perhaps as a statistical study in away that says the average opinion is thus. The key operative word here is opinion. 

    The only thing that can be truly said is that if you have a elo of 2000 you are better than x pct of people and not as good as y pct of people. 

    I hope all you who read this think that it is a good posting (LOL)

    Cheers, Becky

    Kenpo told me it's an average post, so it's likely one of the best on the forum.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #64

    bronsteinitz

    I would call anybody with1800 elo a good player. They would beat most people and play a good game against carlsen. He would beat them, but they would not have to be ashamed of their resistance.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #65

    Expertise87

    Are you sure you meant 1800 and not 2800? An 1800 would not likely play a good game against Carlsen, they'd probably be toasted in a miniature or so far behind as to be losing a couple of moves out of the opening (or even inside the opening).

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #66

    Scottrf

    Kiss

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #67

    Scottrf

    Beckyschess wrote:

    Hi Kenpo. I agree with you . Of course its ok to say that a player with a 2000 player is a good player. Thats what I said in my post. All im saying is that in saying so your not making a scientific statment but rather expressing an opinion, and truth betold, I have seen most of your other opinions and there usually well thought out and what I would call good opinions, at least in my opinion. 

    Cheers, Becky

    Lay off the booze Becky Wink

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #68

    Sunshiny

    45,000 seems like a large number, but you're not showing the big picture. How many FIDE rated chess players are below FIDE 2000?

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #69

    Tmb86

    kenpo

    You're making the classic assumption that skill or intelligence in any particular area correlates to intelligence in all other regards. It is quite apparent that the highest rated chess players in the world are in no respect polymaths - and I can think of few examples of exceptional chess players achieving anything outside the realm of chess. Most 'geniuses' are usually just extremely dedicated to one particular endevour. Chess players seem keen to foster this opinion that being good at chess makes one intelligent, but to me being good at chess means nothing more than being good at chess.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #70

    waffllemaster

    Paolo_Vacarelli wrote:

    It's almost a scientifically proven fact that any dolt that puts even an average amount of time and effort into learning chess can reach a 2000 rating.  I'd say 2000 is an average rating at most, and certainly well below average if you add people with a real innate talent for the game.

    You seem to know a lot about it.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #71

    Doggy_Style

    waffllemaster wrote:
    Paolo_Vacarelli wrote:

    It's almost a scientifically proven fact that any dolt that puts even an average amount of time and effort into learning chess can reach a 2000 rating.  I'd say 2000 is an average rating at most, and certainly well below average if you add people with a real innate talent for the game.

    You seem to know a nothing about it.

    Agreed.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #72

    waffllemaster

    Doggy_Style wrote:
    waffllemaster wrote:
    Paolo_Vacarelli wrote:

    It's almost a scientifically proven fact that any dolt that puts even an average amount of time and effort into learning chess can reach a 2000 rating.  I'd say 2000 is an average rating at most, and certainly well below average if you add people with a real innate talent for the game.

    You seem to know a nothing about it.

    Agreed.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #73

    Expertise87

    I think 2000 is a pretty low goal. Anyone without serious mental issues could reach 2000 with a bit of time and dedicated study. I know people with serious mental issues who have reached 2000 as well.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #74

    APawnCanDream

    Expertise87 wrote:

    I think 2000 is a pretty low goal. Anyone without serious mental issues could reach 2000 with a bit of time and dedicated study. I know people with serious mental issues who have reached 2000 as well.

    I'm looking to see how well I can learn to play chess. If you had 2 hours a day to study chess (what I do currently) how would you use that time?

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #75

    Pawnpusher3

    Well I was talking to my friend who has a 2000 FIDE and he said that studying will help you build principles, but the best way to improve is to play. You can learn important principles, but without practicing them, you can't iron out your chess and make your skill level significantly improve. If you haven't already, I would also reccomend learning opening lines. 

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #76

    piphilologist

    Expertise87 wrote:

    I think 2000 is a pretty low goal. Anyone without serious mental issues could reach 2000 with a bit of time and dedicated study. I know people with serious mental issues who have reached 2000 as well.

    agreed...

    I reached 2000 with little study. just played a lot.  FM is a better goal

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #77

    ThomasRules000

    Im am still 12 but stuck on 1150 have a look at my games what am i doing wrong

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #78

    Expertise87

    If you spend 2 hours a day studying chess, I would spend at least an hour on tactics with a focus on quickly solving easy puzzles(I used to spend ten minutes a day drilling mate in one just to get in chess shape, or use Shredder Chess on my Android phone for its tactics trainer. It costs $7 but there are free ones available as well. I like Shredder because none of the problems are very difficult and it grades you based on the amount of time you take. If you get under 95% on a 500-problem section you are doing it wrong.)

    The rest of the time would be well-spent reviewing basic endgames - make sure you know Lucena, Philidor, and Kling&Horwitz rook endgames, some principles (How to Play Chess Endgames by Muller and Pajeken was an excellent resource I used when I was around 1800-2000) etc.

    But the best way to improve is to play and analyze your games, not study. Tactics study can get you a long way, but you also have to be able to play, analyze, and create tactical opportunities.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #79

    Expertise87

    ThomasRules000 if you study tactics a bit you will find a good move for Black on move 4 of this game:

    http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=374525837

    The best move is 4...Nxe4! for example: 5.Nxe4 d5 6.Bxd5 Qxd5 6.Nc3 Qa5 and Black has more central control and easier development, with a slight advantage. 5.Bxf7+?! is worse: 5...Kxf7 6.Neg5+ Kg8 and Black will play h6 expelling the Knight, which will have to go to h3, and Black has complete control of the center after d7-d5. Black is clearly better here.

    I can take a look at your games to find the mistakes, but they're mostly going to be tactical at your level.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #80

    ThomasRules000

    sorry those games were when i was sleepy last night dropping pieces look back my other games as i have won a few u1200 15 10 tournaments thanks for the tips i got plenty of time to improve


Back to Top

Post your reply: