I do not know; I am confused. I am a little human being; they always advise me to study chess. But it does not feel good to me.
Chess Mentor was actually fun to use for kids due to its interactiveness, but chess.com sadly got rid of it. I have a guide on how to regain access to it.
More than likely it's not because of lack of tactics training but of missing threats to your King & hanging pieces.
I was 1150 some days ago, I dropped from 1150 to 800, it was one of my biggest rating drops.
That’s a very unusually large drop in rating, especially considering it’s in the rapid time-format where you’d hope declines would be slower as it’s harder to spiral into a 3am tilt session.
It’s also a little surprising considering the strength we’re talking about here. I can see how a 700 could tilt to 300 or 400, and I could see how easily a 2900 could tilt to 2600 ish. Maybe I’m biased because I’m in between the two ratings you’ve fluctuated around, but the level difference between a 1700 and a 2100 is genuinely huge. I’m sorry mate :/
Ay what's up, 2200 here. I examined your account, and found out that you play approx. 10 rapid games daily. Limit it to 3 or 4 and analyse them well. It's easy to tilt if you play so many games regularly. I believe you have the skill of a 2100, but overplaying and lack of analysis limits you. Good luch on your comeback
I find it weird why some players have 2200 rapid but 1500 bullet. Mine is usually balanced; the difference is not too far apart.
yo this is crazy wth
I find it weird why some players have 2200 rapid but 1500 bullet. Mine is usually balanced; the difference is not too far apart.
They’re very different skills - some people need the time to think, some people panic at very low time. Some people just play certain time controls a lot more than others. Usually someone’s blitz will be 100-200 points lower than rapid, but that’s just a guide.
Remember, just because your rating climbs to 2100 does not mean you are a 2100-level player. I know that seems illogical, but hear me out: The 2100 rating was the result of a localized set of games you played where you defeated other players rated higher than you. It does not take into account the mistakes they made, the openings they used, the openings you used, the level to which they were prepared to meet your openings, the level to which you were prepared to meet theirs, etc. In other words, your rise to 2100 was, potentially at least, the result of a statistical cluster wherein you were paired at random with a series of players who, for the most part, didn't play as well as you did in those particular games - and this truth is especially magnified if you were playing blitz.
It sounds like what is happening is that you are having a "rating correction." Your variance is returning to the expected value, so to speak. The way you know that you are really a 2100 player is that your rating remains at or about 2100 over a statistically significant number of trials ( or games, in the case of chess specifically.)
I'm sure it's quite an emotional ride and I'm sorry for the anxiety you are experiencing. My advice would simply be to stop looking at the rating as a measurement of yourself as a chess player. Your metric should be: Am I constantly and effectively working at improving in a reliable and consistent way? If the answer to that question is objectively "Yes", then you are on the path that is going to one day deliver you to a high rating level that becomes stable. In the meantime, your actual ability is not going to be accurately reflected in the peaks and valleys of your rating. It's probably somewhere above 1700 but it's almost certainly below 2100. Keep working at it. Don't worry about it. Unless you are so good at chess that you are getting paid to play it, your rating only determines what strength of players you get matched with for your games.
I hope this helps put it right in your head. I know it's painful. We are humans and, as such, we are saddled with all the same human frailties. Call a friend and go out and enjoy something together in the nice weather. Tell them your problem. They'll let you know it will be alright.
I quite agree with what youre saying. I know I said I considered my rating to be accurate, but only at around the 1900-2000 level, and I knew that that 2100 was probably just a series of wins that happen on a lucky day. I usually wouldn't consider someone's peak to be their actual rating unless they were there for a while.
So after getting back into chess a few months ago, I managed to get my way back up to around where my peak was (1700) and began to climb up as expected as I was continuing sot study and a lot mroe like that. I managed to get all the way up to 2098 (so close!) but then suddenly, it was literally like the power went out in my brain and I yet again dropped back to 1700-1800 level in pretty much like 3 days. I'm honestly not quite sure if ive ever a seen a 400 rating drop happen to anyone before. And keep in mind that the buildup to 2000 was over several months, so its not like it wasn't an accurate rating for me.
I figured that maybe my issue was that I needed a short break from chess for a few days, but that still didn't seem to fix my issue. Any possible explanations or advice?
Also its my first time using forums.
it is a rat race, you have to get used to.
most people wants to get higher and higher elo, with implies that you need put more effort than your competitions.
I'm very suprized I didn't fall off.
Many of the above listed issues that are internal to you, like tilt and being tired etc, are indeed important and worth reflecting on. However there are also external reasons that might explain a sudden 400 point rating drop. One reason is cheaters that are rated 1200 and play a game with a CAPS score of 98.62 and steal your rating points. To chess.com's credit they do refund points once they catch cheaters and ban them..... but that is ONLY when they catch them. What did the recent news article from yesterday say.... 100,000 cheaters caught last month alone! Another external issues is sandbaggers. Finally chess.com's controversial use of the RD factor in their rating system can cause HUGE swings in your rating when you haven't been playing in a while.
Bottom line..... it takes a long grind to raise your rating. And any number of internal or external factors can suddenly throw it off the cliff!
A consistent 400 rating drop makes no sense, a 2100 should be able to beat a 1700 in rapid every time effortlessly. Maybe something is causing you to play a lot worse than before or your rating was inaccurate to begin with (like maybe a lucky win streak or something)
I'm also experiencing a slump in blitz. Down to 1100s from my peak of a little over 1400 a few weeks ago. Makes no sense.
I'm also experiencing a slump in blitz. Down to 1100s from my peak of a little over 1400 a few weeks ago. Makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense when you realize that an increase in rating does not necessarily mean you are getting better. Unless it increases a lot and stays there, it probably means you are not getting better. It just means you are the same player with the same plans playing the same kinds of games over and over in blitz, but you just happened to run across a cluster of opponents that are, at that moment, higher rated than you and who played poorly against you.
I have realized that no matter what I do, the only thing that improves me is work. I have to build up my knowledge and my skill so that I can select better moves. None of this will ever happen grinding out blitz games unless one is an exceptionally talented player. I don't know what the frequency of this is - it's probably one in tens of thousands. I have to read, learn, practice, review my games with skilled players, read master games, etc. I have to do it continuously and diligently. Otherwise I don't improve. That's my reality and it's probably yours, too.
I want to play 10 days bullet. And 5 days rapid. And repeat. Five to seven hours a day.