No matter your rating level, increasing your rating is an accomplishment.
For me, 2000 is an accomplishment.
For a 900 rated player, 1200 is an accomplishment.
They are both good to work towards and are both definitely achievable.
is getting to 1200 even considered an accomplishment?
Sort:
Most definitely! Any improvement is good, and 300 points in three months is nothing to scoff at.
The reason 1200 is considered "abysmal by the chess community" is probably due to the fact that the more vocal players are endlessly more likely to be higher rated and more experienced. To a ~2900 Magnus Carlsen, sure, 1200 is abysmal, but then again, he was 1200 at some point in his life too. Don't compare yourself to professionals and veterans, just focus on improving yourself.
My tips for blitz would be to ignore it for the time being in favor of rapid. If one is improving and one isn't, focus on improvement, not bashing your head into the wall that is blitz. Blitz is more stressful and more surprise-focused than rapid. Rapid is more focused on good, solid chess that will actually help you in the long run.
Optimissed wrote:
I do get the impression that 1200 here isn't bad and is deflated compared with otb ability at that rating. The problem is that 1600 here seems inflated. All a 1600 can do is play a bit faster and a bit more accurately.
I've just been struggling with my rapid grade a bit, basically because I don't take it seriously. So I dipped down into the 1600s and I'm finding some of those harder to beat than players around 1950. One reason is that a 1600 generally knows enough to try to flag you all the time, whereas maybe a 1950 has a bit of pride.
Yeah lower rated players are brutal. I have a friend irl who is probably => me in OTB, but is ~400 points below me in rapid because nobody in the 1000s area knows any theory, so his entire gameplan goes out the window.
I remember, I started at like 400 or whatever. 1200 felt like a real milestone and I think sort of represented my deeper understanding of the game. Now I'm 1400+ on chessdotcom (which i dont play seriously) and 1700+ on Gameknot. So 1200 is definitely an accomplishment. But ratings come and go, focus on play.
After starting sub 400 and working my way up to 1200, I thought I would feel accomplished, but really all I've learned is that I am FAR away from where I want to be. Sure it's cool to think about how far we've come but that hasn't lessened my feeling of discontent. I want to get better and someday achieve a 2000+ rating which represents the hard work I've put in to learning this game.
No. Next question.
DreamscapeHorizons wrote:
No. Next question.
Gotta call bs on this answer. If 1200 isn't an accomplishment then 2900 isn't either. Up is up.
consistentlyfalconer wrote:
I can’t imagine ever getting to 1200, so I’d say it’s an accomplishment!
I reviewed your last couple games. You could easily hit 1200.
1200 is a milestone that is at this time beyond me
It would be if you are stuck around 1000 for a while like me.
I am now 1100. i am struggling to get above my current rating and going into the 1200's every single time I reach 1200 I lose. Congrats.
Also I do lichess. I am 1200 in lichess. I
Ratings don’t mean much.
The higher your rating, the harder players you face. That’s all.
I got obsessed with my rating for a bit before I realized that.
In chess, it’s all about checkmating the king and not getting checkmated yourself.
And even then, sometimes its not even that if you, or your opponent, are not having fun.
So, think ratings less of an all encompassing number and more an indicator of your progress and what kind of opponent you will face.
Have fun, and, if you want to get better, do what it takes: study, think, etc.
Ratings will reflect that.
The higher your rating, the harder players you face. That’s all.
I got obsessed with my rating for a bit before I realized that.
In chess, it’s all about checkmating the king and not getting checkmated yourself.
And even then, sometimes its not even that if you, or your opponent, are not having fun.
So, think ratings less of an all encompassing number and more an indicator of your progress and what kind of opponent you will face.
Have fun, and, if you want to get better, do what it takes: study, think, etc.
Ratings will reflect that.
Apr 7, 2023
0
#197
feranard wrote:
Ratings don’t mean much.
The higher your rating, the harder players you face. That’s all.
I got obsessed with my rating for a bit before I realized that.
In chess, it’s all about checkmating the king and not getting checkmated yourself.
And even then, sometimes its not even that if you, or your opponent, are not having fun.
So, think ratings less of an all encompassing number and more an indicator of your progress and what kind of opponent you will face.
Have fun, and, if you want to get better, do what it takes: study, think, etc.
Ratings will reflect that.
The higher your rating, the harder players you face. That’s all.
I got obsessed with my rating for a bit before I realized that.
In chess, it’s all about checkmating the king and not getting checkmated yourself.
And even then, sometimes its not even that if you, or your opponent, are not having fun.
So, think ratings less of an all encompassing number and more an indicator of your progress and what kind of opponent you will face.
Have fun, and, if you want to get better, do what it takes: study, think, etc.
Ratings will reflect that.
unfortunately im still stuck in the rating hungry feral blitz player stage
See my profile pic. Nothing wrong with playing like that.
unfortunately im still stuck in the rating hungry feral blitz player stage
R.I.P
I personally think 1200 is a pretty major milestone for "normal" people. Okay, you're not a prodigy, but you can walk into most clubs and play a decent game. That's like walking onto any playground basketball court and be okay with most pickup games. Not bad.
Depends on what you mean by "1200"?
A 1200 OTB rating is vastly different from a 1200 online rating.
Wrong 😂