Mazetoskylo wrote:
"I downloaded Chessable" - I am very curious about how you did this.
There is no Chessable app for any kind of device.
I have it on my Samsung LOL. What you talking about?
Any tips for improving???
Sort:
20 days ago
0
#23
jon-paul-the87 wrote:
I've seen a great lot of threads here asking for advice how to improve.
I think the truth is brutal:
You can only improve by about 200-maximum 300 rating points in relation to your starting "peak".
No matter how much time daily you put into your training, whether your coach is Magnus Carlsen or noone, 300 points is maximum progress you can achieve.
Because it's all about nature not nurture in chess, unfortunately. You have talent - you have results, no talent - no results.
Probably true. I peak was like 830 tell I fell back into the 600's, went back up to 700 then got stuck in 600 again. What's strange is I'm REALLY good at tactics for my rapid rating. I will sometimes steam roll my opponent because my tactical skills are way more advanced compared to my rapid rating. I'm also good at maintaining solid principled opening. I mostly lose when I can't get into a position to capitalize.
20 days ago
0
#24
Excelling at Chess takes a beautiful mind and a rock solid short-term memory. Unfortunately I have neither. I've beat some really good players and I've been trounced by some lower rated ones as well. As ImTrashLOL_91 said "I mostly lose when I can't get into a position to capitalize" is insightful. When I luck into a well played opening (usually by luck) I too can capitalize. When my opening is trash I don't have the skill to get myself out of it.
20 days ago
0
#25
I also bought a $97 package from Remote Chess Academy ... Boost Your ELO to 2000 Bundle:
- Level Up Your Chess
- Top 25 Middlegame Concepts
- 3 Steps to 2000 ELO
- The Grandmaster's Secrets
- Crushing the King
- Mastering Piece Coordination and Planning
I think I am way over my head ... and there is no way this old, broken down, mentally deficient geezer will ever make it to 2000 just by studying this material. I doubt I'll ever get to 1000. But, I'm going to give the heads down studying a try and see what comes of it.
20 days ago
0
#26
jon-paul-the87 wrote:
I've seen a great lot of threads here asking for advice how to improve.
I think the truth is brutal:
You can only improve by about 200-maximum 300 rating points in relation to your starting "peak".
No matter how much time daily you put into your training, whether your coach is Magnus Carlsen or noone, 300 points is maximum progress you can achieve.
Because it's all about nature not nurture in chess, unfortunately. You have talent - you have results, no talent - no results.
This is not true, when I started Chess.com, I was rated approximately 1100 for a while. A few years and a gold membership later, I am nearly 1800 - around +700 elo in 3 years.
Yes it will take time to see results, but they do come if you stay dedicated and practice regularly. This does not need to be much; I play just 1 or 2 rapid games a day and spend some time doing puzzles. "Over time 1% improvements add up." James Clear said in his book Atomic Habits. This means that improving slowing (but consistently) is more reliable than hoping for a big breakthrough to set you up rating.
jon-paul-the87 a écrit :
I've seen a great lot of threads here asking for advice how to improve.
I think the truth is brutal: [...]
You may want to consider what the father of the Polgar sisters proved to the World instead of babling your ignorance around.
19 days ago
0
#28
wrote:
Kaeldorn napisał:
jon-paul-the87 a écrit :
I've seen a great lot of threads here asking for advice how to improve.
I think the truth is brutal: [...]
You may want to consider what the father of the Polgar sisters proved to the World instead of babling your ignorance around.
I think Judith Polgar proves my point. Don't you think she's immensely talented?
The entire point made by their father is that he can teach anyone to become a strong chess player. At least, I believe that was his original intention.
jon-paul-the87 a écrit :
I think Judith Polgar proves my point. Don't you think she's immensely talented?
What about the two others? Why do you insisy on missing the point?
jon-paul-the87 a écrit :
It's the ancient debate of nature or nurture
But no, since the Polgar sisters and the demonstration that hard working does the job, in regards of becoming very strong at chess, it's no longer a debate.
Kaeldorn wrote:
jon-paul-the87 a écrit :
It's the ancient debate of nature or nurture
But no, since the Polgar sisters and the demonstration that hard working does the job, in regards of becoming very strong at chess, it's no longer a debate.
I think it helped that she was probably talented too, and first of all started as a little kid. 10 000 h of work alone won't do the job, if you are starting out in your 30s.
jon-paul-the87 wrote:
I think the truth is brutal:
You can only improve by about 200-maximum 300 rating points in relation to your starting "peak".
I think if you start as a total beginner rated 500, there is much room for improvement. I think everyone can get to 1600 with the right training.
Jenium wrote:
jon-paul-the87 wrote:
I think the truth is brutal:
You can only improve by about 200-maximum 300 rating points in relation to your starting "peak".
I think if you start as a total beginner rated 500, there is much room for improvement. I think everyone can get to 1600 with the right training.
The point is that "your starting peak" is incredibly vague. What does that even mean? The guy can define it any way he wants, just so it fits that crazy rule he invented.
First and most important solve puzzle and take lessons and also sometime you. Miss the chance to take queen so In every match you will analysis by your self then move. And learn some openings. Thank :) this following ways easily grow your elo
jon-paul-the87 wrote:
magipi napisał:
Jenium wrote:
jon-paul-the87 wrote:
I think the truth is brutal:
You can only improve by about 200-maximum 300 rating points in relation to your starting "peak".
I think if you start as a total beginner rated 500, there is much room for improvement. I think everyone can get to 1600 with the right training.
The point is that "your starting peak" is incredibly vague. What does that even mean? The guy can define it any way he wants, just so it fits that crazy rule he invented.
1. First, I didn't "invent" anything. I'm just paraphrasing IM Dawid Czerw's words.
2. By "starting peak" I mean your rating after 3-6 months everyday practice on chess.com, the time varies depending on the player, of course, the moment when after a steady progress you first time get to the point where your rating stops going up.
So, in my and IM D. Czerw's opinion, from that moment on, you can only progress roughly 300 points.
And Magipie, please don't be disrespectful just because you have a higher rating. That's unreasonable.
If this is the case, that's obviously untrue.
Magnus Carlsen started playing chess at the age of 5, started going to kids' tournaments at the age of 8. Whatever was his rating after 3-6 months, it must have been quite low. It took him 7 years (!) to reach 2000 at the age of 12, and then in the next 6 years he improved by a further 700+ points. All in all, from his "first peak" he certainly improved by at least 1500+ points, not 200 or 300.
I don't think any IM would say something that's so blatantly false. The only possible explanation is that you misunderstood something.
And please, don't mock my name. It's not "Magipie".
A facepalm emote and a "speechlesshappy" response isn't really going to disprove the very concrete example that I gave.
jon-paul-the87 wrote:
You can't give M. Carlsen's case to prove a rule because he is more of an exception than a repetitive pattern. I was trying to discern a pattern, a principle that could be applied to the majority of people, but not to geniuses and prodigies.
Well okay then. Take any other GM or IM or FM or even CM. There are tens of thousands of those, and probably not all of them are "geniuses and prodigies". But what they do share in common is that they were all rated 1000 (or under) after 3-6 months, and improved more than 1200 points from that level. It took them years and years of hard work.
Hi