Forums

This Website Sucks For Beginners

Sort:
Avatar of PawnTsunami
PawnTsunami
Jul 13, 2022
0
#221
Ziryab wrote:

Look at MDM’s rapid rating before you trust his claims. He knows how to tell a story to sell a book. He had financial resources and no responsibilities, devoted two years to chess, briefly cracked 2000, and then quit. His book is a con.

There are quite a few people who question de la Maza's claims (some assuming he found a way to cheat and just did not get caught).  While possible, it doesn't change the moral of the  story much in my opinion.

Hans Tikkannen did something similar to make his push for the GM title in his late 20s (the Woodpecker Method).

Avatar of PawnTsunami
PawnTsunami
Jul 13, 2022
0
#222
PawnTsunami wrote:
Ziryab wrote:

Look at MDM’s rapid rating before you trust his claims. He knows how to tell a story to sell a book. He had financial resources and no responsibilities, devoted two years to chess, briefly cracked 2000, and then quit. His book is a con.

There are quite a few people who question de la Maza's claims (some assuming he found a way to cheat and just did not get caught).  While possible, it doesn't change the moral of the  story much in my opinion.  While there is a large gap in his rapid rating, he only has 4 games in 1 event (over 2 years before he won at the World Open), so there simply are not enough games the make a decent comparison.

Hans Tikkannen did something similar to make his push for the GM title in his late 20s (the Woodpecker Method).

 

Avatar of Ziryab
Ziryab
Jul 13, 2022
0
#223
PawnTsunami wrote:
Ziryab wrote:

Look at MDM’s rapid rating before you trust his claims. He knows how to tell a story to sell a book. He had financial resources and no responsibilities, devoted two years to chess, briefly cracked 2000, and then quit. His book is a con.

There are quite a few people who question de la Maza's claims (some assuming he found a way to cheat and just did not get caught).  While possible, it doesn't change the moral of the  story much in my opinion.

Hans Tikkannen did something similar to make his push for the GM title in his late 20s (the Woodpecker Method).

 

I doubt he cheated, but do think he was dishonest about his initial skill. His rapid rating, based on very few games, is about 1700. He played in a decent chess club with decent players and from them developed good positional understanding, but he was terrible at tactics. He found a method for curing his defect—that’s what’s at the heart of deliberate practice—and he rose quickly. He then peddled his ideas to other adults who did not have the time and resources to pursue his plan the way he did it.

Along the way, he criticized a lot of respected coaches who could do far more for those who opted for his method instead, and like him, they, too, burned out. Check out the dozens of chess blogs created by folks calling themselves Errant Knights. A lot of them gave up. Burnout.

Avatar of Ziryab
Ziryab
Jul 13, 2022
0
#224
Ziryab wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:

BTW you know who else is not 2000 rated even though chess is their life?   @ziryab.  You gonna tell me that guy didn't put in the work for the past 20 years?  😂🤣   

 

Chess is not my life. Yes, I’ve played it for more than 50 years. I’ve played it almost every day since the mid-1990s. I’ve been an online blitz junkie since 1998. I have something over 400 chess books and I’ve spent a lot of time reading them. I’ve been coaching children for 22 years. I’ve written some chess books. I’ve spent more time on chess than most people. More time has been spent playing than teaching. More time has been spent teaching than learning. I learned the game before the age of 10, but improved my game substantially in my 40s. Now in my 60s, I’m still learning, but my skill overall is not improving much, if at all. My blitz ability suffers even more. In my 40s, I could play 120 moves in a one minute game using the touch pad on my laptop computer. I struggle to play half that many today.

As for my life: this is a chess site, so that’s the side you see. I prefer the river, the lake, the woods. I fish. I hunt. I shoot targets for fun. I bought an old gun just because it would be fun to work on it and to shoot it. I rebuilt some parts that were missing. It was manufactured as a military rifle, then drastically modified as a sporting arm. Might be getting a lead furnace so I can cast bullets for this antique, but in the meantime, Montana Bullet Works can sell me what I need.

I’m a history teacher. That’s my life.

If my life had been devoted to reaching a 2000 blitz rating on a chess site, I would have done it.

 

Oh, wait. It wasn’t my goal, but I did get over 2000 in blitz on this site less than two years ago. Since then, most of my blitz has been when I’m not focused and just killing time.

Avatar of Mike_Kalish
Mike_Kalish
Jul 13, 2022
0
#225

Thanks for sharing all that, Z. I sincerely found it very interesting. You sound like someone I would love to sit and have coffee with....

Avatar of PawnTsunami
PawnTsunami
Jul 13, 2022
0
#226
Ziryab wrote:

I doubt he cheated, but do think he was dishonest about his initial skill. His rapid rating, based on very few games, is about 1700. He played in a decent chess club with decent players and from them developed good positional understanding, but he was terrible at tactics. He found a method for curing his defect—that’s what’s at the heart of deliberate practice—and he rose quickly. He then peddled his ideas to other adults who did not have the time and resources to pursue his plan the way he did it.

Along the way, he criticized a lot of respected coaches who could do far more for those who opted for his method instead, and like him, they, too, burned out. Check out the dozens of chess blogs created by folks calling themselves Errant Knights. A lot of them gave up. Burnout.

Hard to say since there was a massive gap in skill level in the event he played in.  He lost to a 2400, 2100, and 1900, and beat another unrated guy who also ended up with a first provisional rating of over 1600 simply because they were allowed to play in such a weird pairing (that guy continues to play chess and how has a rapid rating of 1380 23 years later).  De la Maza had played in a classical event (a quad) the week prior to that rapid event and came out with a provisional rating of a little over 1100 where the only player he beat was rated 900.  So I do not doubt he had things to work on.

For those that do not play OTB, the way the provisional rating works in USCF, for the first 25 games it is the sum of all your opponents' ratings adding 400 for each win, and subtracting 400 for each loss and then divided by the games played.  That is why they typically do not like to pair unrated people in the open division of these big events.  If you played in the World Open in the open section and your opponents were all rated 2400-2800 USCF, you could lose every game and end up with a (still provisional) rating over 2000.

But to your point about his followers getting burnt out.  There I completely agree.  The method he pushed demonstrates why you do not see more adults doing it.  Most people are not independently wealthy and do not have the dedication to spend that much time improving at chess.

Avatar of Ziryab
Ziryab
Jul 13, 2022
0
#227
PawnTsunami wrote:
Ziryab wrote:

I doubt he cheated, but do think he was dishonest about his initial skill. His rapid rating, based on very few games, is about 1700. He played in a decent chess club with decent players and from them developed good positional understanding, but he was terrible at tactics. He found a method for curing his defect—that’s what’s at the heart of deliberate practice—and he rose quickly. He then peddled his ideas to other adults who did not have the time and resources to pursue his plan the way he did it.

Along the way, he criticized a lot of respected coaches who could do far more for those who opted for his method instead, and like him, they, too, burned out. Check out the dozens of chess blogs created by folks calling themselves Errant Knights. A lot of them gave up. Burnout.

Hard to say since there was a massive gap in skill level in the event he played in.  He lost to a 2400, 2100, and 1900, and beat another unrated guy who also ended up with a first provisional rating of over 1600 simply because they were allowed to play in such a weird pairing (that guy continues to play chess and how has a rapid rating of 1380 23 years later).  De la Maza had played in a classical event (a quad) the week prior to that rapid event and came out with a provisional rating of a little over 1100 where the only player he beat was rated 900.  So I do not doubt he had things to work on.

For those that do not play OTB, the way the provisional rating works in USCF, for the first 25 games it is the sum of all your opponents' ratings adding 400 for each win, and subtracting 400 for each loss and then divided by the games played.  That is why they typically do not like to pair unrated people in the open division of these big events.  If you played in the World Open in the open section and your opponents were all rated 2400-2800 USCF, you could lose every game and end up with a (still provisional) rating over 2000.

But to your point about his followers getting burnt out.  There I completely agree.  The method he pushed demonstrates why you do not see more adults doing it.  Most people are not independently wealthy and do not have the dedication to spend that much time improving at chess.

 

There are some decent principles in his methods, but they need substantial modification to serve their target population. He offers some good visualization exercises. His seven circles are methodologically sound, even though practically impossible for people with families who work for a living.

Attacking coaches, as he does, earned him the enmity he deserved.

Avatar of Ziryab
Ziryab
Jul 13, 2022
0
#228
mikekalish wrote:

Thanks for sharing all that, Z. I sincerely found it very interesting. You sound like someone I would love to sit and have coffee with....

 

We live on opposite sides of the same state. If you ever make a trip to Spokane, send me a message.

Avatar of MaetsNori
MaetsNori
Jul 13, 2022
0
#229
oranmilne420 wrote:

And when I ask for help all I get is the same responses with a link to some blog or the opening principles or the "Analyze every game and see where you missed." 

For One thing, I can't afford the analysis after every game. I don't have the money to pay for premium and I'm playing to enjoy myself and not be reminded of my financial situation.

You can analyze every game you play, for free. You don't need a paying membership at all.

Analysis Button

Simply click on "Analysis" after you play a game. It will take you to the Analysis Board (https://www.chess.com/analysis) where you can analyze the game all you want, with the engine's top evaluation lines showing, for help.

Try different moves. Explore different lines. Watch the engine eval to see if you've made any mistakes (or if your opponent has).

(I also recommend doing post-game analysis on your own, without an engine, to see what ideas you can come up with, yourself. This, too, can be quite instructive, by teaching you to look deeper and more critically at your own moves.)

Avatar of Ziryab
Ziryab
Jul 13, 2022
0
#230
CooloutAC wrote:
Ziryab wrote:

A guy spends most of his time working when work is learning and teaching history, but also has an online blitz chess addiction, likes chess books, plays OTB, and spends a little time teaching chess to kids, and he becomes someone’s example of how it is not possible to reach 2000 in his chess rating. You gotta wonder if anyone knows what they are talking about. My favorite Ronald Reagan quote was deployed, so that’s something.

http://historynotebook.blogspot.com/2020/11/what-is-ignorance.html

The claim was sans “defects”. Blitz reinforces error. That is a defect. Too much blitz before you master fundamentals and mastery will elude you.

 

 

 

so you blame it all on playing blitz?   Thats quite the convenient excuse,  and completely ignorant and out of touch when blitz is the goal and aspiration of the majority of players on this website.  But I guess according to your logic you are not 2000 rated blitz,  because you didn't play enough classical lmao.   I think this illogical belief is the root of your problem.  Playing classical is what makes you worse at blitz,  especially OTB classical for online blitz,   because the truth is,  as I explained to Tsunami,  not only are you the example of someone who has studied chess for 20 years but can't get 2000 rated on here,  you are also the example of how OTB classical chess does not correlate to online blitz ratings.     This should be common knowledge especially if you followed the speed chess streaming competitions and see the many examples of this in real time and the commentators pointing it out.

But what a huge deflection from the thread topic due to some posters egos.  The fact is 800 rating on here is not a beginner anymore.  Its slightly below average.  I'm not a beginner i'm just low skilled below average player.  The reason we tell players to play Rapid,  is because then they will indeed be playing with other "beginners" or low skilled players and boost their morale.  But  for nothing more.  IF blitz is their sole aspiration,  then that is what they should be playing an analyzing.  But like the op said,  the competition is way harder on chess.com.  And IMO the reason for that is the how they implement their rating system for new accounts.


You’re not reading carefully. Or you are deliberately misreading. Either way, you are wrong. Again.

Blitz hindered me from exceeding 2000 OTB. I got close. 1982.

I have exceeded 2000 blitz. On this site. In the past two years. I also have focused almost entirely on rapid in Arena for the past two years. The first month playing Arena dropped my rapid rating 200 points. It is easy for me to get over 1900 rapid if I play only open seems. Playing Arena, OTOH, pits me against too many underrated players. A few bad moves and my rating drops 12-15. Gotta win ten games against such players to get those 12 points back.

Obviously, my play is not designed to maximize my rating. I play for other reasons.

Avatar of PawnTsunami
PawnTsunami
Jul 13, 2022
0
#231
CooloutAC wrote:

Playing classical is what makes you worse at blitz,  especially OTB classical for online blitz,   because the truth is,  as I explained to Tsunami,  not only are you the example of someone who has studied chess for 20 years but can't get 2000 rated on here,  you are also the example of how OTB classical chess does not correlate to online blitz ratings.

In a bit of situational irony, GM David Howell talked about this regarding his recent experience at the World Rapid and Blitz tournament when he mentioned that he kept losing blitz rating points to "Indian wonderkids" whose blitz rating is in the 1900s (because they don't play it often) while their classical rating is over 2600.  Obviously, they got to 2600+ in classical chess by playing a ton of blitz, oh, wait ...

CooloutAC wrote:

you are also the example of how OTB classical chess does not correlate to online blitz ratings.     This should be common knowledge especially if you followed the speed chess streaming competitions and see the many examples of this in real time and the commentators pointing it out.

This is so laughable it is almost sad.  You are talking about IMs and GMs, not duffers coming off the street.  If you have a GM who plays online regularly and is comfortable with the interface they are playing on, and a GM who doesn't play online much, of course there is a slight advantage to the one who plays online.  Levon Aronian was in the top 5 in Rapid in Blitz during the first few Grandmaster Blitz battles (later called the Speed Chess Championship) and lost in the first round simply because he was not used to the online interface.  But, who did he lose to?  Was it some kid who has played nothing but online blitz?  Nope.  It was to another Super-GM.

In another thread you tried bashing Carrisa Yip in her loss to Greg Shahade in the first IM Not a GM tournament and claimed it was because she doesn't play online.  Not realizing 1) Greg is a very strong IM and is one of the IMs who would likely quickly earn the GM title if he were to put his mind to it, and 2) Carissa has played online for several years.  She was literally the face of ChessKid for the first several years it existed!  Using the SCC as an example of "playing blitz to get better at blitz" for beginners is simply ignorant nonsense.

CooloutAC wrote:

The fact is 800 rating on here is not a beginner anymore.  Its slightly below average.  I'm not a beginner i'm just low skilled below average player.

Nope, you are a beginner.  There is nothing wrong with that - we were all there at one point.  But as a beginner you must realize 1) you know nothing, and 2) people that have moved beyond that phase know more than you (and yet, many of us still know next to nothing and can freely admit it!).  How do I know you are a beginner?  No, it isn't because of your rating.  It is because of the types of mistakes you make:  playing the opening on auto-pilot, not taking material when it is available, leaving things hanging, making 1-move threats, ignoring your opponent's threats and allowing them to checkmate you from a position you were winning.  These are the same types of mistakes we see from kids (6-9 years old) who have been playing chess for 6 months.  All of those habits are broken quickly as they move out of the "beginner" phase.  You have yet to do that (again, not insulting you here, just pointing out the facts), which means you are still a beginner.  You will cease to be a beginner when you start breaking those habits and replacing them with better ones (hint:  you are not likely to do that by playing fast time controls - you must learn to walk before you can run).

 

 

Avatar of llama36
llama36
Jul 13, 2022
0
#232
PawnTsunami wrote:

@CooloutAC, what you’ve just written is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it.

"I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

Avatar of PawnTsunami
PawnTsunami
Jul 13, 2022
0
#233
nMsALpg wrote:

"I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

I'm glad someone got the reference happy.png

Avatar of llama36
llama36
Jul 13, 2022
0
#234

After a person has worked to gain some skill (it could be chess or anything else) I think acquiring a new skill is easier since they'll have some methodology.

For example in chess, I see a lot of people talking about books or videos or chessable or etc. Those are just tools. Someone who has already gained a skill would ask something like, what are the main areas of study? What are the fundamental skills? (meaning skills that underpin your ability to preform everything else), and what kinds of exercises help me build those skills?

The basic areas are (in no particular order) openings, endgames, strategy, and tactics. The most fundamental skill is the ability to easily and quickly list all the ways to threaten a piece, and then all the ways to remove that threat. For example a queen may be able to give check on 3 different squares, and the opponent may have 3 ways to remove each check. A daily exercise you can do is solving puzzles.

So to get better you do 3 things... you read, you play, and you do exercises... more generally you try to identify mistakes (then not do them anymore) and identify areas where you lack knowledge (and then learn about them).

---

Some program that has you repeat an opening 100 times until you've memorized it is misleading... it makes you feel like you've accomplished something, but in terms of improving your results it may be useless... yes you gained knowledge about, let's say, 100 individual positions, but chess has a billion billion billion (etc) positions. If you're losing due to an opening, then sure, learn that opening, otherwise it's better to learn how to play a whole class of positions.

For example if you know the elements of a successful attack, and then learn how to conduct a few basic types of mating attacks, then you'll be able to attack in most positions where an attack is possible... which also helps you defend more tenaciously when your opponent has an attacking position... or to avoid such positions before they materialize by favoring one variation over another... etc

Avatar of llama36
llama36
Jul 13, 2022
0
#235

I know my post above is only somewhat on topic, but since it's a topic about beginners wanting to improve...

Avatar of Mike_Kalish
Mike_Kalish
Jul 13, 2022
0
#236
Ziryab wrote:
mikekalish wrote:

Thanks for sharing all that, Z. I sincerely found it very interesting. You sound like someone I would love to sit and have coffee with....

 

We live on opposite sides of the same state. If you ever make a trip to Spokane, send me a message.

Wow.....I would definitely do that! If you get to the SW corner of WA, you do the same.

Avatar of llama36
llama36
Jul 13, 2022
0
#237

I don't know why you quoted my post to say that. It has nothing to do with the ideas I raised.

Avatar of mpaetz
mpaetz
Jul 13, 2022
0
#238
CooloutAC wrote:

 

memorizing lines of theory isn't a skill, at least not an exercised skill which is what one thinks of when thinking of skills in games.   It keeps becoming more and more evident,  that chess has more to do with natural ability  such as memory and spatial vision then knowledge or practiced skills.     Its like saying anybody who learns basketball with hardwork will be able to play at a competitive college level,  which is not true since  people are limited by their physical abilities.

     When a team of French cognitive scientists studied the French chess Olympiad team in the 1920s (including Alekhine, Marcel Duchamp and Man Ray) the only areas in which team members all scored in the top 1% of the general population were visualization and visual memory. 

     Your innate abilities in these area undoubtedly determine the top range of your chess possibilities, just as physical traits determine the top range of your sports achievements, or aural acuteness helps determine your musical possibilities. These abilities, and their application, can be improved with practice but the top level has probably been pre-set by your inherited talent.

     That's no reason to quit trying to improve to your own best level, if just for your personal satisfaction. And there's no reason to quit some activity you enjoy just because you realize you'll never be world class in it.

Avatar of llama36
llama36
Jul 13, 2022
0
#239
mpaetz wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:

 

memorizing lines of theory isn't a skill, at least not an exercised skill which is what one thinks of when thinking of skills in games.   It keeps becoming more and more evident,  that chess has more to do with natural ability  such as memory and spatial vision then knowledge or practiced skills.     Its like saying anybody who learns basketball with hardwork will be able to play at a competitive college level,  which is not true since  people are limited by their physical abilities.

     When a team of French cognitive scientists studied the French chess Olympiad team in the 1920s (including Alekhine, Marcel Duchamp and Man Ray) the only areas in which team members all scored in the top 1% of the general population were visualization and visual memory. 

     Your innate abilities in these area undoubtedly determine the top range of your chess possibilities, just as physical traits determine the top range of your sports achievements, or aural acuteness helps determine your musical possibilities. These abilities, and their application, can be improved with practice but the top level has probably been pre-set by your inherited talent.

     That's no reason to quit trying to improve to your own best level, if just for your personal satisfaction. And there's no reason to quit some activity you enjoy just because you realize you'll never be world class in it.

I once came across some dorky online brain test where (I'm not going to remember exactly, but it was like this) one of the exercises showed you a picture, and if the purple circle was on the left then you click on the left side of the screen. If it's on the right the click on the right. After 30 seconds of this it gave a new rule, like click on the left if the blue circle appears on the right.

On most tests I'd been scoring around 50%... some a little higher, some a little lower, but you know, mostly I'm a normal person... but on this one I scored like 99.99% lol

And the funny thing was during the test it felt really similar to speed chess... because in speed chess all the time I'm setting up little rules for visual cues "if they move the knight I play check, otherwise I push my pawn" then I react as fast as possible.

Avatar of PlayByDay
PlayByDay
Jul 13, 2022
0
#240
PawnTsunami skrev:
nMsALpg wrote:

"I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

I'm glad someone got the reference

Pretty sure I linked video of the same scene in another thread with Coolout. Strange how he different people all think of Billy Madison when we read what he writes.