Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Rating 2000


  • 22 months ago · Quote · #121

    waffllemaster

    But Pogonina makes a good point.  2200 for a professional is an embarrassment, but for an amateur is a life long achievement :)

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #122

    solskytz

    For a professional it also isn't an embarrassment as he may not be a professional chess player who gains his bread, but a professional manager, coach, writer (who can help people improve up to expert, for example) - Dan Heisman comes to mind, who is only NM and certainly not way above 2200 FIDE level. Where's the embarrassment? I find him very valuable, even brilliant. 

    Someone who's 2200 won't make big money out of tournament chess. If he still manages to make a reasonable living from chess that's quite something. 

    Making a living off of what you love is great in any case. Not everybody does that. 

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #123

    red-lady

    waffllemaster wrote:

    But Pogonina makes a good point.  2200 for a professional is an embarrassment, but for an amateur is a life long achievement :)

    I agree but I stick to my point. There is just one Mozart, one beethoven and one Liszt. You can fill the names in yourself ;)

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #124

    solskytz

    <Piphilogist>

    Thanks for your comment :-) 

    Maybe there's something wrong with me... I'm probably worth around 2050 FIDE (although I don't have the rating - I have just three FIDE rated games from several years ago where I scored two wins and one loss against opposition which averages at 1994) and still feel like a good player... :-) 

    I guess there is... as I've been feeling that way also when I was way worse...

    As long as I keep enjoying chess and learn new stuff I guess my problem isn't that big though...

    (btw I have some friends who are FIDE masters and up. One FIDE master in particular, who comes to mind - he doesn't think that he can compete against the top level, and I think he's right. I also hand him a more-than-occasional defeat... often when we analyze together I see moves and ideas before he does - of course less than 50% of the time... he's the master and is really much stronger than me)

    Levels are relative. If I didn't feel like a strong and deep player (and we all do, you can do nothing against it) I would never make it from around 1200 to my current level - it's the fuel that drives me up. I'm good - and then I want to get better. 

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #125

    waffllemaster

    solskytz wrote:

    For a professional it also isn't an embarrassment as he may not be a professional chess player who gains his bread, but a professional manager, coach, writer (who can help people improve up to expert, for example) - Dan Heisman comes to mind, who is only NM and certainly not way above 2200 FIDE level. Where's the embarrassment? I find him very valuable, even brilliant. 

    Someone who's 2200 won't make big money out of tournament chess. If he still manages to make a reasonable living from chess that's quite something. 

    Making a living off of what you love is great in any case. Not everybody does that. 

    In the strictest sense, yes, those who make money off of their ability are pros, and personally I have a lot of respect for those masters who I've gotten a lot of good advice (Heisman, chess.com, youtube people, etc).  They're very good players who could certainly beat me.


    But on the subject of rating goals and achievements, a professional player, with professional goals as a player (not a teacher or commentator, or anything else), would hopefully only be rated 2200 once (on his way up).

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #126

    Expertise87

    I agree with the statement that your next goal should be dependent on your current level. As an Expert, my next reasonable goal is to make Master. As a class A player, I wanted to make Expert. As a class B player, I wanted to stay at class B and win some money. Once I did that, I wanted to become a class A player, etc. It's hard for even an underrated class A player to make money in a chess tournament, although the same cannot be said for the lower levels.

    I also agree with Natalia Pogonina that it depends on who you want to think of you as good. If you want the guys at the office to think you are a good chess player, 1200 is a reasonable goal. If you want to impress the people at your local chess club, 1800-2000 might be more reasonable. If you want Kasparov to think you are good, change your name to Magnus and move to Norway. If you want me to think you are good, get to 2300, etc. I don't think of myself as a good player by my own standards, but this is motivation for me to get better, not something I would get upset about and quit over.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #127

    DrCheckevertim

    i agree with solsk and expertise.

    i never plan to reach 2300 FIDE. because, once i reach ~2000 USCF, I will be a respectable player to all those who dont take chess extremely seriously. i will be on the level of other "good" amateurs who simply want to play a good game, as a hobby -- people who have studied the game a moderate amount, but mostly just want to play a good game and improve whenever they can. oh... and i will be virtually invincible in any "social" games ;)

    if i could be 2000 at most things in life, i would be pretty dang happy. look -- a 2000-rated restaurant would be a really good restaurant -- it just wouldn't be a restaurant with $50 exotic steaks and perfect silverware placement. a 2000-rated car is like a mid-end mercedes or a bmw. yeah it's not a high-end mercedes or a porsche, but it's pretty freakin good compared to most other cars.

    get it? sure, it's easy to look down from 2500+ land and say that 2000s dont know what they are doing. because their games are so much further from "perfection." if you look at it in that way, yeah. but dont look at it that way. once again, that's like saying a bmw is a completely horrible clueless car because it's not a porsche. (or insert some other top of the line car here). it's like saying your friend who destroys you at basketball sucks at basketball cause he isn't michael jordan. or the kid down the street who easily beats the shit out of you isn't a good fighter because he would get knocked out by mike tyson.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #128

    APawnCanDream

    Expertise87 wrote:

    I agree with the statement that your next goal should be dependent on your current level. As an Expert, my next reasonable goal is to make Master. As a class A player, I wanted to make Expert. As a class B player, I wanted to stay at class B and win some money. Once I did that, I wanted to become a class A player, etc. It's hard for even an underrated class A player to make money in a chess tournament, although the same cannot be said for the lower levels.

    I also agree with Natalia Pogonina that it depends on who you want to think of you as good. If you want the guys at the office to think you are a good chess player, 1200 is a reasonable goal. If you want to impress the people at your local chess club, 1800-2000 might be more reasonable. If you want Kasparov to think you are good, change your name to Magnus and move to Norway. If you want me to think you are good, get to 2300, etc. I don't think of myself as a good player by my own standards, but this is motivation for me to get better, not something I would get upset about and quit over.

    Its exciting to see someone who is well above my chess ability and is rising with such motivation as you. Let me know when you achieve master status!

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #129

    Expertise87

    Well, I'm trying to get into medical school first, but after I get some interviews lined up I will be dedicating my time to studying chess!

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #130

    APawnCanDream

    Expertise87 wrote:

    Well, I'm trying to get into medical school first, but after I get some interviews lined up I will be dedicating my time to studying chess!

    Medical school? You sure seem to be an ambitious type. Way to go! I might message you in the future if I get stuck while climbing the chess knowledge ladder...or for some medical advice. Wink

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #131

    johnyoudell

    Good idea. While the machines are doing the diagnoses and operations you can play them at chess so they don't get too stressed.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #132

    Expertise87

    KingsEye, any time you want advice just ask. You can add me to friends too.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #133

    APawnCanDream

    Expertise87 wrote:

    KingsEye, any time you want advice just ask. You can add me to friends too.

    Done. =)

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #134

    Elubas

    I don't know if relativism always applies when it comes to what I think is strong -- supposedly the argument goes that, right now, I may want to become 200 points higher, but once I do, I'll think that strength is weak and want 200 more points, etc, but honestly, I'm at 1900 right now, and although I do want to get much higher, I feel a lot more satisfied with my play than I did when I was in the 1600s for example.

    At the same time, I don't think 1500s are patzers either, even though I am 400 points higher than them. There are certain levels in chess that I respect as milestones in chess ability -- you can count on a 1500 at least coming up with something interesting -- he knows about nice attacking sacrifices and has some positional intentions -- even if he won't execute them well and even if he makes a few more blunders than he should.

    In particular, I like the feeling of a chess game that doesn't contain a lot of blunders. I always used to throw away games due to really simple ideas -- I might come up with a brilliant attacking idea in the beginning of one of my games, then a few moves later, hang my queen. I don't want people to count on me making such dumb mistakes anymore Smile. At 2000 level and above, players simply blunder a lot less.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #135

    eddysallin

    expertise87-                           u may be right about ratings,i don't know,but in my book u have a pretty good head on your shoulders !

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #136

    APawnCanDream

    Elubas wrote:

    I don't know if relativism always applies when it comes to what I think is strong -- supposedly the argument goes that, right now, I may want to become 200 points higher, but once I do, I'll think that strength is weak and want 200 more points, etc, but honestly, I'm at 1900 right now, and although I do want to get much higher, I feel a lot more satisfied with my play than I did when I was in the 1600s for example.

    At the same time, I don't think 1500s are patzers either, even though I am 400 points higher than them. There are certain levels in chess that I respect as milestones in chess ability -- you can count on a 1500 at least coming up with something interesting -- he knows about nice attacking sacrifices and has some positional intentions -- even if he won't execute them well and even if he makes a few more blunders than he should.

    In particular, I like the feeling of a chess game that doesn't contain a lot of blunders. I always used to throw away games due to really simple ideas -- I might come up with a brilliant attacking idea in the beginning of one of my games, then a few moves later, hang my queen. I don't want people to count on me making such dumb mistakes anymore . At 2000 level and above, players simply blunder a lot less.

    Why thank you for the compliment, after 1500 what is the next milestone to you? Mine is 1800 because then I could play a section up in most USCF tournaments and play in U2200, and the 2000-2200 rating range is what I currently view as attainable for me if I'm focused enough and keep up with my chess studies. I'd be elated if I reached past that, though!

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #137

    Grandmasta23

    i believe people who have high chess ratings could have high iq scores. The ones that do have certain things like patience, the time to study, and MOST IMPORTANTLY their heart is in it.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #138

    Tmb86

    "The ones that..."

    The ones who... 

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #139

    DalaiLuke

    who dat?

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #140

    DalaiLuke

    checkevrytim wrote:

    sure, it's easy to look down from 2500+ land and say that 2000s dont know what they are doing. because their games are so much further from "perfection." if you look at it in that way, yeah. but dont look at it that way.

    Your whole post is great, especially this :)


Back to Top

Post your reply: