How long does it take to get to each benchmark, 1000, 1200, 1500, 2000, 2200?
Sort:
800 to 1200 (Glicko-1, Chess.com’s rating system) in 4 months. After 1400 or so it will probably get much slower.
llama47 wrote:
dominusdone wrote:
llama47 wrote:
dominusdone wrote:
Chess is 99% tactics. Look at gm games and computer vs computer games. They use tactical threats 99% of the time to gain a positional advantage.
That's simply not true.
prove it isnt because computers have proved it
Incorrect.
I assume your reasoning is along the liens of "computers beat humans because humans miss tactics, therefore tactics win" which is flawed for, off the top of my head, 3 reasons.
so prove me wrong.... Litterally every high level master 3000 engine uses tactics to win and pure caculation. There is no logic like humans. They use pure tactics
May 15, 2021
0
#63
If you know so much about it, why do you care what I have to say?
I mean... I don't care what you have to say, so...
May 15, 2021
0
#64
Fun fact, Deep Blue calculated more (and was weaker than) engines from 2010.
Neural net engines calculate even less than those.
I suppose I could at least tell you to start there.
May 15, 2021
0
#65
Also games like... Alpha Zero's wins vs stockfish in the Queen's Indian... long term sacrifices are not tactics, they're deep positional play. Engines favor active pieces, not tactics... but for a new player those probably sound like the same thing.
May 15, 2021
0
#66
B1ZMARK wrote:
speedrun from 1100 to 2300 in two years on chess.com
correction: 1100 to 2400
May 15, 2021
0
#67
little_guinea_pig wrote:
B1ZMARK wrote:
speedrun from 1100 to 2300 in two years on chess.com
1000 to 2000 in one year
(unfortunately there was a two year space in between when I couldn't play any chess... so more like 3 years sigh)
I haven't kept full track of my progress but here's a rough idea:
Starting: 400
~ 6 months: 700
~ 1 year: 800
~ 1.5 years: 900
~ 1 year 8 months: 1100
~ 1 year 10 months: 1300
~ 2 years: 1500
*sigh* I don't really count a bullet of 1800 as fully legitimate... especially over 12 games. I'm not the person you want to play against due to the fact that I never resign and always flag lol
May 15, 2021
0
#68
Like anything in life. Just practice and you will be there soon.
How do you get to Carnegie Hall? Practice, practice, practice.
May 15, 2021
0
#69
B1ZMARK2 wrote:
B1ZMARK wrote:
speedrun from 1100 to 2300 in two years on chess.com
correction: 1100 to 2400
I'd have to get to 2400 before June tho
May 15, 2021
0
#70
llama47 wrote:
Fun fact, Deep Blue calculated more (and was weaker than) engines from 2010.
Neural net engines calculate even less than those.
I suppose I could at least tell you to start there.
God no. You seem like you know something about chess software. We cannot listen to you. It is much better to keep a debate going among the misinformed.
As to the OP’s original question. I have no idea. I was never under 1400.
B1ZMARK2 wrote:
little_guinea_pig wrote:
B1ZMARK wrote:
speedrun from 1100 to 2300 in two years on chess.com
1000 to 2000 in one year
(unfortunately there was a two year space in between when I couldn't play any chess... so more like 3 years sigh)
I haven't kept full track of my progress but here's a rough idea:
Starting: 400
~ 6 months: 700
~ 1 year: 800
~ 1.5 years: 900
~ 1 year 8 months: 1100
~ 1 year 10 months: 1300
~ 2 years: 1500
*sigh* I don't really count a bullet of 1800 as fully legitimate... especially over 12 games. I'm not the person you want to play against due to the fact that I never resign and always flag lol
im 1000 after 6 months
May 16, 2021
0
#72
dominusdone a écrit :
llama47 wrote:
dominusdone wrote:
llama47 wrote:
dominusdone wrote:
Chess is 99% tactics. Look at gm games and computer vs computer games. They use tactical threats 99% of the time to gain a positional advantage.
That's simply not true.
prove it isnt because computers have proved it
Incorrect.
I assume your reasoning is along the liens of "computers beat humans because humans miss tactics, therefore tactics win" which is flawed for, off the top of my head, 3 reasons.
so prove me wrong.... Litterally every high level master 3000 engine uses tactics to win and pure caculation. There is no logic like humans. They use pure tactics
All those games played and all are wins and not even one tactics! not one calculation!
Only positional thinking!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzrqYqwkUZM
May 16, 2021
0
#73
started when i was 11:
1000 - I week
1200 - 2 months
1500 - 6 months
1800 - 1 year
2000 - 2 years
May 16, 2021
0
#74
peak of 2322 but that's bullet so it doesnt really count
blitz peak 2183 got it about 3/4 year after i got 2000
llama47 wrote:
Also games like... Alpha Zero's wins vs stockfish in the Queen's Indian... long term sacrifices are not tactics, they're deep positional play. Engines favor active pieces, not tactics... but for a new player those probably sound like the same thing.
engines dont understand positional play. There is a tree base where they choose the moves from. Space for example +1 king distance + 4 score and such thus. When they find a sacrafice there is always compensation. For high level deep engines its all about tactics. Humans may know where to look, but engines know everything
May 16, 2021
0
#76
dominusdone wrote:
llama47 wrote:
Also games like... Alpha Zero's wins vs stockfish in the Queen's Indian... long term sacrifices are not tactics, they're deep positional play. Engines favor active pieces, not tactics... but for a new player those probably sound like the same thing.
engines dont understand positional play. There is a tree base where they choose the moves from. Space for example +1 king distance + 4 score and such thus. When they find a sacrafice there is always compensation. For high level deep engines its all about tactics. Humans may know where to look, but engines know everything
I can't tell if you're trolling so I'm going to ignore you now.
llama47 wrote:
dominusdone wrote:
llama47 wrote:
Also games like... Alpha Zero's wins vs stockfish in the Queen's Indian... long term sacrifices are not tactics, they're deep positional play. Engines favor active pieces, not tactics... but for a new player those probably sound like the same thing.
engines dont understand positional play. There is a tree base where they choose the moves from. Space for example +1 king distance + 4 score and such thus. When they find a sacrafice there is always compensation. For high level deep engines its all about tactics. Humans may know where to look, but engines know everything
I can't tell if you're trolling so I'm going to ignore you now.
exactly because you cant prove me wrong...
May 16, 2021
0
#79
dominusdone wrote:
llama47 wrote:
Also games like... Alpha Zero's wins vs stockfish in the Queen's Indian... long term sacrifices are not tactics, they're deep positional play. Engines favor active pieces, not tactics... but for a new player those probably sound like the same thing.
engines dont understand positional play. There is a tree base where they choose the moves from. Space for example +1 king distance + 4 score and such thus. When they find a sacrafice there is always compensation. For high level deep engines its all about tactics. Humans may know where to look, but engines know everything
The compensation is a better position, and a getting a better position a lot of times depends on positional play.
