16588 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
You must have played a bunch of masters or something!
I don't know how long you are playing already, but to be honest: 1300 at 16 is not very promissing, I think.
Forty years back, when I was 13, it took me only half a year to gain a national rating of 1600 (which was comparable with Fide 165O nowadays), after one and a half year I was at 1800 and the next 100 took another year. When I was 16 I won my first regional youth tournament. When I was 17 I played my first large international youth tournament (in Biel, Switzerland). I ended up 5th place (amongst 150 or so); in the last round with black I mistreated an Alekhine defense against Murray Chandler, who won the tournament and became a GM quite soon.
But I have to admit that I studied just as hard at chess than I did with schoolwork. It might very well be that you would improve faster if you would invest more time.
Good luck and success!
I invest quite a bit of time! I play daily, and study tactics and strategy probably four days a week. And I understand what you're saying, but as I stated earlier, I am not looking to compete with grandmasters in Switzerland in a year or two. I'm just looking to be in the pack, and several people said that I'm already there.
Why should one bother about his rating at this level, on the first place?
Just learn the game properly, and then you can start thinking about ratings and such.
Well said, Pfren!
Well, rating for me is the main measure of my progress. Obviously it doesn't always flesh out perfectly, but it's only my steadily increasing number that can confirm to me for sure that I am improving (at least result wise, which is what generally matters most IMO), rather than just subjectively thinking I'm improving. I guess inflation and other anomalies are possible, but not likely to be significant. For example if I have been way above 1500 for years, even after playing numerous tournaments, I can be pretty confident that I am a better player than I was when I was 1500.
My craving to move up now is not any different from my craving to move up when I was rated lower -- we would always prefer a higher number than the one we have.
I think what they mean is in the beginning what's important is setting up a good foundation of knowledge / good habits. This doesn't always translate to increased performance at first. Meanwhile in the beginning you can increase your performance without increasing your knowledge in a useful way (e.g. dubious gambits).
Ok, I agree with that.
Elubas, Pfren's comment was about a 16 year-old who is just starting out and is concerned about his rating. It wasn't about someone trying to break 2000 OTB. He wasn't talking about you.
age 13, 1500 FIDE, 1620 chess.com, 2000 chesscube
I'm in Ireland. I'd put my real OTB playing strength at about 1600 or 1550, but I don't have anything more than a provisional here (I'm basing that on 15 games I've played in OTB tournaments which give me a playing strength of 1600, but I'm not sure if it's quite that high). Nobody else in my school plays chess, really, but there's a teacher whose father coached the Irish chess Olympiad team one year. He's not bad, supposedly a 1600 but it's dubious considering how easily I can beat him. I get wheeled out for simuls in assemblies all the time, which is a total joke considering I never have to play anybody better than a beginner there and it makes me look great. I started playing 9 months ago, about. :) Wish I was in the States. Scholastic chess looks to be so much more organized.
Everybody's view on what a good rating is is different for everyone. It's not like you can just put people into 2 sections, good and bad.
Checking back on this, like a year and a half later. I can't believe how rating-conscious I was, haha.
10/7/2015 - Shulman - Krush, US Championship 2007
by JamesAgadir 4 minutes ago
serious trouble. help?
by Rsava 8 minutes ago
Need Help analyzing a specific position
by logozar 8 minutes ago
Why are women not as successful as men in chess?
by clockblockerz 9 minutes ago
Why do chess players hide behind avatars and false profiles?
by 38Jacques 13 minutes ago
The Hnerf Attack
by TheBlunderfulPlayer 19 minutes ago
Knight vs Rook with pawns majority
by Rsava 19 minutes ago
Did black play this opening ok?
by kiiiira 31 minutes ago
What would be the best brake on playing under the influence of alcohol?
by TurboFish 36 minutes ago
Ruy Lopez: Schliemann Defence 4. d3
by Bishop_g5 45 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!