@DelLiberty
Try watching the GingerGM on YouTube. His Longer Games series should be helpful to most people. If you watch one per day you'll be a better player in 3 months.
How long did it take you to get an elo of 1000 in chess.
Sort:
Apr 13, 2023
0
#103
senorpetirrojo wrote:
@DelLiberty
Try watching the GingerGM on YouTube. His Longer Games series should be helpful to most people. If you watch one per day you'll be a better player in 3 months.
Do you really think watching a YT translates into improved play? I watch plenty of YT, but I'm not sure it leads to better play. But I like the Ginger GM so I'll check the series out anyway 
DelightfulLiberty wrote:
senorpetirrojo wrote:
@DelLiberty
Try watching the GingerGM on YouTube. His Longer Games series should be helpful to most people. If you watch one per day you'll be a better player in 3 months.
Do you really think watching a YT translates into improved play? I watch plenty of YT, but I'm not sure it leads to better play. But I like the Ginger GM so I'll check the series out anyway
I tried sending you a challenge, but it said you weren't accepting any.
Apr 13, 2023
0
#105
Marcyful wrote:
DelightfulLiberty wrote:
senorpetirrojo wrote:
@DelLiberty
Try watching the GingerGM on YouTube. His Longer Games series should be helpful to most people. If you watch one per day you'll be a better player in 3 months.
Do you really think watching a YT translates into improved play? I watch plenty of YT, but I'm not sure it leads to better play. But I like the Ginger GM so I'll check the series out anyway
I tried sending you a challenge, but it said you weren't accepting any.
My settings have it to friends only. I'll send you a challenge in a few hours.
DelightfulLiberty wrote:
Marcyful wrote:
DelightfulLiberty wrote:
senorpetirrojo wrote:
@DelLiberty
Try watching the GingerGM on YouTube. His Longer Games series should be helpful to most people. If you watch one per day you'll be a better player in 3 months.
Do you really think watching a YT translates into improved play? I watch plenty of YT, but I'm not sure it leads to better play. But I like the Ginger GM so I'll check the series out anyway
I tried sending you a challenge, but it said you weren't accepting any.
My settings have it to friends only. I'll send you a challenge in a few hours.
Alrighty
Apr 13, 2023
0
#107
Well I learned by reading books pre-internet.
You need to do a mixture of studying and playing...there's nothing wrong with blitz for fun and practice but some of the games you play should be at a slow time control where you spend time thinking through variations, giving the games your best shot and taking your grading seriously. Ultimately though, if you don't study you'll reach a point where you won't improve.
How you study is up to you. John Bartholomew does better videos than GingerGM in my opinion but they're more suitable for people graded at least 1600. I'm just saying that Ginger's series of videos is pretty good and suitable for inexperienced players.
Good luck.
Toi long
I’ve been playing ches for about 2 months and I’m 200
Jun 2, 2023
0
#110
kaelan1208 wrote:
Hey, what's the avg elo
On chess.com i think its around 675 for rapid, but could be off. Keep in mind this mixed trolls and casual players with serious players and masters
Jun 2, 2023
0
#111
8thMarch2023 wrote:
I have been playing since March 8th and have hit 1200 and rising without a hitch
That is amazing
I'm happy to hear you have nice progress, but realize that rating becomes MUCH tougher to increase the higher up you get due to the rating system and also because your opponents will play tougher and have less margin of error.
Never 🥲
Jul 12, 2023
0
#113
Even though time has passed, I too am along this journey. I am currently hovering in the 650 range and wish to play at a consistent elo of 1000.
llama_l kirjoitti:
KeSetoKaiba wrote:
rating becomes MUCH tougher to increase the higher up you get due to the rating system and also because your opponents will play tougher
I mean... neither of those is the reason right?
The math is only aware of the difference in rating i.e. it sees 100 vs 200 the same as 3100 vs 3200 or for that matter 100000 vs 100100 or -1100 vs -1000. Sure if you graph outcome vs rating difference it's logarithmic, but in the range of opponents people typically play (0 to 200 rating difference) a linear relationship is a good approximation.
And "opponents play better" doesn't imply anything about a change in the the rate of how much better they play. There's no reason to assume progress should slow at one rating or another based only on the fact that a gradient of playing strength exists.
Sure progress slows, but it'd have to do with the nature of the game and human biology. By nature of the game I mean ratings are based on the game result, and oversights (like a queen blunder) have an outsized influence in the result of the game. As you get better it's rare the result of the game changes in just 1 move, so the knowledge and techniques required to regularly change the result of your games become much more involved.
I think it is fairly obvious the rating gain in relation to the effort that has to be put in to achieve it would work logarithmically.
Even if you just take a look at the rating distributions it becomes clear that there are less and less people every 100 rating points when you are above average rating.
Also it is kind of obvious that the higher the rating, the larger the share of those people at that rating will be people who are putting in some serious effort. So competition will be tougher and that means you will have to put in more effort to gain an edge and climb the next 100 points.
Put all this together and I feel like it would be really weird if it worked linearly as in effort put in to rating gain ratio would be linear... I do not think so.
Aug 25, 2023
0
#115
play according to the principles and you will be able to exceed 1000!
i still haven't even after a year😅
llama_l kirjoitti:
Habanababananero wrote:
llama_l kirjoitti:
KeSetoKaiba wrote:
rating becomes MUCH tougher to increase the higher up you get due to the rating system and also because your opponents will play tougher
I mean... neither of those is the reason right?
The math is only aware of the difference in rating i.e. it sees 100 vs 200 the same as 3100 vs 3200 or for that matter 100000 vs 100100 or -1100 vs -1000. Sure if you graph outcome vs rating difference it's logarithmic, but in the range of opponents people typically play (0 to 200 rating difference) a linear relationship is a good approximation.
And "opponents play better" doesn't imply anything about a change in the the rate of how much better they play. There's no reason to assume progress should slow at one rating or another based only on the fact that a gradient of playing strength exists.
Sure progress slows, but it'd have to do with the nature of the game and human biology. By nature of the game I mean ratings are based on the game result, and oversights (like a queen blunder) have an outsized influence in the result of the game. As you get better it's rare the result of the game changes in just 1 move, so the knowledge and techniques required to regularly change the result of your games become much more involved.
I think it is fairly obvious the rating gain in relation to the effort that has to be put in to achieve it would work logarithmically.
Even if you just take a look at the rating distributions it becomes clear that there are less and less people every 100 rating points when you are above average rating.
Also it is kind of obvious that the higher the rating, the larger the share of those people at that rating will be people who are putting in some serious effort. So competition will be tougher and that means you will have to put in more effort to gain an edge and climb the next 100 points.
Put all this together and I feel like it would be really weird if it worked linearly as in effort put in to rating gain ratio would be linear... I do not think so.
Sure, intuitively it's logarithmic because many things are, but that's a separate issue from the mechanism at play.
Maybe we are talking about different things.
Now of course you only need to win say 10 games with the rating difference being close to 0 at any rating to gain 80 points.
I wasn’t trying to say that more wins is needed or anything, only that it will be more difficult to gain the amount of inofrmation needed to be able to gain the needed edge over the other players (which has nothing to do with any mechanism whatsoever) in order to be able to achieve those wins and then stay at that new rating.
So once more, I am not talking about any mechanism. I am talking about the ratio between the effort put in to improve ones chess the necessary amount and the rating gain achieved working so that the rating gain will be somewhat logarithmic.
If it were not, then anyone could basically just shoot up to master lever with relatively little effort, which we both well know, is not the case.
1K Elo is around 80+% so it's far above average in Rapid.. And I was thinking it was around 1200 Elo which is called intermediate.
I'm aiming for 12 months. If I get some progress, but don't make a 1000 in 12months I'll give it another 12 months. If I haven't improved hardly at all in 2 years, I'll likely just accept that that level of chess is something beyond me and reduce the amount of effort I put into development; though I'd still play for fun.
Perhaps I could help with that by pointing out some of your flaws and how you can overcome them. You up for a game?
Sure. But I won't be able to play for another few hours.