I think real achievement in chess is to have 2000 or higher. I look lower levels and my eyes are bleeding when someone blunders a piece or can't mate the king with more than enough material.
If you really want succeed in chess, you have to make a big renunciation and sacrifice at least 3 hours of your time every day.
I think real achievement in chess is to have 2000 or higher. I look lower levels and my eyes are bleeding when someone blunders a piece or can't mate the king with more than enough material.
If you really want succeed in chess, you have to make a big renunciation and sacrifice at least 3 hours of your time every day."
I certainly remember a(least one) game where I was playing someone with ~900 rating and I basically had a TON of manpower on the board, yet somehow (s)he kept being able to push a pawn or make threats and checking my King for a LONG time, with very few pieces.
I eventually won, but at the end it felt like having an army of knights and a couple pawns threatening to promote, along with a Queen, who was mostly unable to move because of being in check most the time.
I've got to give some Kudos to whoever managed to do that. Yeah, I won, but it was amazing how much of challenge that player eeked out of a small handful of pieces.
Fun stuff and was definitely a game that was worth playing 
Yes, 2000+ is certainly an achievement ... but I admit that such games are a bit beyond my ability to follow in detail. I've enjoyed seeing some of the antics that very high level players are able to pull off ... sort of like jokes that even lower level players can understand! Ha! 
Of course it is an achievement! I've been playing chess for months, studying my high rated friends, doing puzzles, observing, all I can to learn when I can, and I'm still rated 100 in my blitz and bullet games, and 153 in my rapid games. However, I don't see this as failure, as I'm constantly learning everyday, and have been successful at analysing puzzles. For similar reasons, I don't think you should consider your 1200 rating as abysmal. You've clearly worked hard for a few years to work your way up to that rating, so you should be proud. Even though you may not be satisfied, remember that the most proficient things take time. This is evident all throughout the chess world, as each grand master has worked tirelessly for decades and then some, all to get just where they are today. For many chess players, including myself, it takes many games to develop a single strategy effectively.
Just keep on making your best efforts and analysations. Slowly, you'll begin to see it pay off. I recommend doing all of the puzzle categories, especially going over the ones you've missed, even if it can be bitter. Don't be afraid to mentally or physically annotate your mistakes and/or opponents best-moves if you find yourself in a dreaded game either. Good luck out there, I hope this helps!
In order to improve you might consider dropping blitz and bullet. Playing longer time controls allows your brain to become attuned to the complexities of the game and allows for calculation as well as intuition. Walk before you run. Expert players can play very fast time controls well because they have already internalized many scenarios through having played a lot of longer games.
In order to improve you might consider dropping blitz and bullet. Playing longer time controls allows your brain to become attuned to the complexities of the game and allows for calculation as well as intuition. Walk before you run. Expert players can play very fast time controls well because they have already internalized many scenarios through having played a lot of longer games.
I completely agree! This is great advice, I'm glad you shared
Of course it is an achievement! I've been playing chess for months, studying my high rated friends, doing puzzles, observing, all I can to learn when I can, and I'm still rated 100 in my blitz and bullet games, and 153 in my rapid games. However, I don't see this as failure, as I'm constantly learning everyday, and have been successful at analysing puzzles. For similar reasons, I don't think you should consider your 1200 rating as abysmal. You've clearly worked hard for a few years to work your way up to that rating, so you should be proud. Even though you may not be satisfied, remember that the most proficient things take time. This is evident all throughout the chess world, as each grand master has worked tirelessly for decades and then some, all to get just where they are today. For many chess players, including myself, it takes many games to develop a single strategy effectively.
Just keep on making your best efforts and analysations. Slowly, you'll begin to see it pay off. I recommend doing all of the puzzle categories, especially going over the ones you've missed, even if it can be bitter. Don't be afraid to mentally or physically annotate your mistakes and/or opponents best-moves if you find yourself in a dreaded game either. Good luck out there, I hope this helps!
My experiences with Blitz games has been similar and I remember a string of maybe 15 losses that dropped me down to ~600 rating on Blitz games, though I don't really mind too much. It's not as good as I had been expecting, but it's also obvious that there are ways I could do better, should there be such a desire.
I view it similar to you in that I prefer having more time to play slower and take things at a pace that feels comfortable. I prefer to make moves where I have a good feel about what's going on in the game and how things may tend to unfold.
I am certain that I could still make improvements from playing many Blitz games, but it's ok ... it's a choice and Elo ratings aren't entirely what it is all about.
It's also interesting about what you said regarding developing a strategy in slower games to where it becomes more easy and natural to apply them to faster games.
An interesting thought I came across was about sacrificing some Elo points for making it more "fun" (as vague as that may be) I decided to vote "Yes" for that and honestly, it has been a bit more fun to play without as many worries about Elo ratings.
Consider this: "Is it possible to play with someone who might be hundreds of Elo points below you and still enjoy the game?" - My guess is "Yes"+ 
Have fun, thank you, and best wishes on your adventure(s) (Chess or otherwise).
P.S.: Also, for anyone curious, an Elo rating of 300 points higher implies that person should win about 3 out of 4 games against the lower rated player (I believe - it's at least a close approximation), so that kind if implies that the Elo rating system is a bit of a 'pyramid scheme' and it takes about three players at 900 to support a player at 1200, and it similarly takes about 3 players rated at 1200 to 'support' a 1500 rated player etc. Every 300 points Elo rating means the 'population' at that level is about 1/3rd or 1/4th ... and considering how few people even play in Chess competitions to get an average rating of ~1000. This makes gameplay in the 2000+ range a rather rare event.
So, *high fives* 🙏, Sir or Ma'am. A 1200 Elo rating in Chess means that, not only did someone take the time and energy to learn and play games of Chess but to even join 'more professionally rated' competitions and even be somewhere in the top 1/3rd or so.
Sure, as you have similarly stated, it may not be something, at least at the time, worthy of any significantly fancy ceremonies but I am rather certain there are already people and awards that would enjoy honoring someone who made it to a 1200 rating ... even if it is just a few handshakes, congratulations and a plastic ribbon you might place somewhere in commemoration.
Enjoy.
At almost any level, complexities will arise that can pose a challenge. Higher rated players shouldn't be complacent when playing lower rated.
Even 1000, 900, 800, 650, 534 etc. can be considered accomplishments, for the same reasons you give to attribute a sort of magical value to 1200. But then what's the point ? Can everyone be proud of what they can achieve ? Sure, obvious, but I don’t think that's the meaning of the question posed in this topic.
A 1200 chess player is the equivalent of someone who can strum a few songs on the guitar. It doesn't matter how many millions are those who strum worse than you… however huge their number, you remain an amateur ( in the noble meaning of the term ): it's gratifying, it gets handshakes and congratulations, but it's not an accomplishment if not for yourself.
It's not about despising yourself or others, it's just a matter of recognizing our limitations and our smallness. In the case of chess, in order to be able to believe that one has reached a significant level as a chessplayer, there is a long way to go, much longer than reaching 1200…
Even 1000, 900, 800, 650, 534 etc. can be considered accomplishments, for the same reasons you give to attribute a sort of magical value to 1200. But then what's the point ? Can everyone be proud of what they can achieve ? Sure, obvious, but I don’t think that's the meaning of the question posed in this topic.
A 1200 chess player is the equivalent of someone who can strum a few songs on the guitar. It doesn't matter how many millions are those who strum worse than you… however huge their number, you remain an amateur ( in the noble meaning of the term ): it's gratifying, it gets handshakes and congratulations, but it's not an accomplishment if not for yourself.
It's not about despising yourself or others, it's just a matter of recognizing our limitations and our smallness. In the case of chess, in order to be able to believe that one has reached a significant level as a chessplayer, there is a long way to go, much longer than reaching 1200…
That is a very rational way to put it, but still incredibly moving! Thank you for leaving your well-said words.
An accomplishment, at least to me, is something I have been personally striving for being finally achieved. I have come close to 2400 in puzzles for example and I just can't quite reach it, so when I do, I will consider it an accomplishment 😊
That is my goal eventually. Still gotta get past 1000 though. I struggle playing too fast, but then when I slow down I go too slow and will lose on time.
I think it's always fun learning new things, and in chess it's fun to look back and think, wow I would have missed that before, or knowing a tactic when you were mindlessly moving pieces before(like me lol). That being said I'd say it's fun to hit a milestone like 1200 but the little wins along the way make it worth it, whether it's a 650 getting a scholar mate or a 2200 performing a perfect end game that they couldn't before. My 2 cents
:tup :tup :tup
Best wishes, and that's something nice about Elo ratings - they provide a vague way to match players of similar skills together. I'm happy that the Elo rating system works rather well to keep games decently matched ... to be honest, I prefer to play players with a bit lower Elo rating and win more games, but with less gains in Elo than to (potentially) play games against a string of hard players and losing most the time.
... overall, the Elo system has seemed to work well here and I'm happy it's implemented. It works well enough that I can practically have a vague "early feel" if I am playing with someone who has a rating +/- 150-200 points difference from me.
Good luck with your game plays, and I DID find that using the daily puzzles and challenges here on this site helped with my game play. I think the main benefit is that they showed many different ways that one might appear to be at a disadvantage, yet still pull a win by doing moves that might not be obvious.
Yes, good luck and overall have fun. Hasta
An accomplishment, at least to me, is something I have been personally striving for being finally achieved. I have come close to 2400 in puzzles for example and I just can't quite reach it, so when I do, I will consider it an accomplishment 😊
The puzzles have definitely been helpful and learning experiences, though they seem to give a higher rating than what general gameplay here gives.
I think my rating on puzzles has been around ~1600 but my rating for slow (max 3 days per move) games has been near 1100.
In all cases, the puzzles have been great to inspire ideas / learning.
♟️
As someone who has for the first time surpassed 1200 , Hardly? And the people around 1200ish I've met so far seem mostly inane. The game starts for real much higher than this
It’s hardly an achievement to you because you started off with 1200 skill. If someone works their butts off to get to 600, it’s an amazing achievement that should be celebrated. Yes, 1200 should be an achievement if someone works for it.
Something kind of 'cool' about Chess, (at least for me personally, though I know it applies to some others as well) is that, as I believe it has been said (likely more than once), "It is a game that can be easy to learn, but take a lifetime to master".
From my perspective, yes, that has been very true. If someone asked if I'd prefer to play a game of Checkers or Chess
Yeah, Let's do it!!! *grabs the Chess board* 
I remember a time when a niece of mine who was only about 6-7 years old had received a "Chess set" (a paper board with plastic pieces and maybe 7 or 8 of them were missing) and she was excited to play with me.
We would set up the board and I would tend to bias the missing pieces to where she would have the advantage, and we had fun playing quite a few games. I admit that I ended up 'winning' every game with her, but she didn't really seem to care much and I was resistant against 'stooping so low' as to give her a win, when it seemed it would not ulimately have really mattered much.
Something I really enjoyed about the games with her was that her gameplay was NOT simply random and it was obvious she knew and considered various moves and made moves that had some sense / reasoning / logic behind them ... so maybe in a sense we had a 'common language' / understanding of the game between us.
I'm simply happy that she was so excited and enjoyed the game and kept at it ... should I have 'given her a freebie'? Well that is a question that, at least from my perspective, can lead to 1000+ 'rabbit holes'.
It's ok though. There's still a figurative 'raincheck' left for a time when she can feel the complete satisfaction of having won a game of Chess with her Uncle. 'fair and square'.
🙏 Peace out