It's definitely not as bad as it used to be. I think chess.com must be doing a pretty good job.
It used to be that ~2000 was a glass ceiling for rapid here (years ago). These days I see real players maintain 2200 ratings, so I probably don't have to worry about it so much.
... the main problem now is I'm in the slow process of retiring from playing chess 
So for that reason too I'm not so interested.
When I was stuck in my improvement, I hated posts like these too, so I'm sorry for that.
I wonder if this metric would make you feel any better? Let's rate players based on the most number of hours they've spent in 1 month studying chess.
Not playing chess. Not passively watching chess videos. Not staring at an engine's analysis. I mean studying, actually studying chess.
For me, I think the most was 80 hours in one month.
Most people have studied zero hours in their entire life so...
I used to manage a few hours daily, but now I'm lucky if I even crack open a chess book for serious study and not just reading while eating
When I was stuck in my improvement, I hated posts like these too, so I'm sorry for that.
I wonder if this metric would make you feel any better? Let's rate players based on the most number of hours they've spent in 1 month studying chess.
Not playing chess. Not passively watching chess videos. Not staring at an engine's analysis. I mean studying, actually studying chess.
For me, I think the most was 80 hours in one month.
Most people have studied zero hours in their entire life so...
I used to manage a few hours daily, but now I'm lucky if I even crack open a chess book for serious study and not just reading while eating
I only seriously studied a few times in my life, and never for more than 1 month at a time. Mostly I played blitz, and sometimes I'd quickly check the game with an engine.
But sometimes I really did work hard, and I think it's worth mentioning because, you know... I think some people don't realize that while they're goofing around some players are actually putting in serious work.
What makes you avoid rapid? More cheaters in higher time controls or what?
Cheaters and stallers, yeah. It's probably not as bad as I imagine, but I know they exist and I'd rather not deal with them.
I don't know if "staller" is a common word. I mean people who stop playing when they're losing and let their clock run for 20 minutes.
Well, they're probably not "people" because it's hard for me to imagine an adult doing this. They're probably little kids.
I've recently been starting rapid more, im 2190 as of writing this. It's fine so far - I also thought there would be more cheaters, but they usually aren't. It bothers me if I keep thinking every opponent I play is a cheater, so I just give up on caring about it.
It's definitely not as bad as it used to be. I think chess.com must be doing a pretty good job.
It used to be that ~2000 was a glass ceiling for rapid here (years ago). These days I see real players maintain 2200 ratings, so I probably don't have to worry about it so much.
... the main problem now is I'm in the slow process of retiring from playing chess So for that reason too I'm not so interested.
there's a couple legit 2300s I've seen and played, one of them's easychess something (he has numbers) with a high of around 2380 in rapid, which is one of the reasons why I started rapid again. I mean, if he can do it, I can too... maybe.
It's definitely not as bad as it used to be. I think chess.com must be doing a pretty good job.
It used to be that ~2000 was a glass ceiling for rapid here (years ago). These days I see real players maintain 2200 ratings, so I probably don't have to worry about it so much.
... the main problem now is I'm in the slow process of retiring from playing chess So for that reason too I'm not so interested.
there's a couple legit 2300s I've seen and played, one of them's easychess something (he has numbers) with a high of around 2380 in rapid, which is one of the reasons why I started rapid again. I mean, if he can do it, I can too... maybe.
I started noting when you had 2200 in all your live time controls, and I was like, oh, maybe rapid isn't cursed.
Yeah i think hitting 1200 is a very good accomplishment. My first goal was to hit 1000 and i was very happy and proud when i hit it. At 1200 you starting becomme good att chess.
Well 1200 is considered intermidiate. It is an ok achivment. Well I am now 14 years old and i have been around 1500 But I have fall since I didnt play to some where around 1200 and players are decent. They understand opening strategija on the decent Level But still blumder to often and need to train
Well 1200 is considered intermidiate. It is an ok achivment. Well I am now 14 years old and i have been around 1500 But I have fall since I didnt play to some where around 1200 and players are decent. They understand opening strategija on the decent Level But still blumder to often and need to train
cringe
I think so. When I started playing I was on a bit of a tear and 900 and even a 1000 didn't seem that far. Now that I've been at it for a few weeks and have tanked a couple of times, 900 seems like a long term goal.
CooloutAC wrote: llama47 wrote: CooloutAC wrote:
What it all boils down to with you is an inferiority complex and you wanting to demean the OP and those praising him for reaching 1200 so you can feel suprior.
Eh, it's easy to make ungenerous psychological analyses like this...
For example the only reason you shout about how much speedrunning undermines ratings and sportsmanship is sour grapes i.e. it's psychologically more comfortable to tear down the entire enterprise of online chess than it is to accept you're not a good player.
Ironic, because the tearing down is being done by the speedrunners and the site themselves for allowing it.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Made an alt account to not risk having my main account banned.
I looked into your account/ games, and can offer you some insight or advice if you so choose to take it
There was once a time where I sandbagged, not proud looking back on it; I'm now a skilled player and have a proper amount of respect for the game and community.
I did this back when I was around 800 rating, and was sandbagging 400's... I think I played around 40-50 games, and the only losses I had were intentional, as an 800 I was effortlessly smashing every single 400-500 rated player I crossed paths with complete ease.
This idea you have built in your head that you are a 1000 rated player just getting mismatched is complete insanity, you have 1700 games played, your 500 rating is accurate, sandbagging would affect very few games overall and wouldn't affect your climb enough to be notable. Plus very very few speed runners start at 400 rating, It is much more common for them to start at 1000 or 1200, but even then they make up far less than 1% of the community. Like I said, I was a 800 destroying 400's and never once got sandbagged by anyone above 800 rating in like 50 games. Also, most people have about 50-150 rating higher on Lichess than on Chess.com, Lichess has always rated slightly higher, but not 400-500 rating higher, especially after playing 1700 games.
You are sitting here complaining about sandbaggers ruining the game, but you are literally one of the people doing it October 28th you were 500 rating, October 29th, your rating dropped to 100... Your rating then effortlessly jumped back to 500 without almost ever losing a game, but over the past two months been unable to break into 600.... This is just more confirmation that you are rated accurately, you went from 100-500 in like a day, but now struggle against the 600's.
There's nothing wrong with being a 500, if you are having fun that's all that matters, focusing on rating will never feel rewarding unless you become 2700+, the goalpost just keeps changing each time and you will be left unhappy, focus on personal growth and most importantly just enjoy the game. But it seems you want to improve your rating so I'll leave you with this:
You need to admit to yourself that there are some serious fundamental issues with your gameplay holding you back and forget all about whether or not your opponent is being unsportsmanlike, or what you think your rating should be etc. Also from what I can tell, you play more so to win, and care a lot less about improvement; 70% of your losses are resignations, you also are analyzing more of your won games than your lost games, but you will learn the most from the losses, plus the whole sandbagging incident... I promise you you don't want to do that, smashing 100 rated players will actually lower your overall playing strength... Focus on your losses, not your wins, and never resign to a 500, a lot of them will stalemate unknowingly.
That's all mindset stuff and can easily bring you up +200 rating, fight your games out! As for gameplay... Your biggest issue is board vision, both leaving pieces en prise, and spotting winning tactics. You can start studying openings and theory at your rating, but they wont be nearly as effective or helpful as PUZZLES... Puzzles puzzles puzzles. I promise you if you put everything else aside, and just smash puzzles, you will hit 1000 rating no problem. If you are wanting to learn theory this early on, start with the simplest concepts first. Many will tell you low ratings shouldn't study theory, some are just gatekeepers, most know that Puzzles are more important early on, but IMO you can start learning theory whenever you like. The first theory I ever learnt was "King Opposition" (very important), next I learnt how to win King and 1 Pawn vs King ("King and Pawn endgame") (Teaches you more King opposition, and introduces you to "zugzwang" theory, next I learnt how to checkmate someone with only 1 rook, and it just all progressed from there, but I always put most of my time and effort into the puzzles.
Second issue I'm noticing with you is very common with beginners, just because you are winning, does not mean you need to find some ultra aggressive/devastating move to end the game. Learn to be more comfortable in positions you know you are currently winning, close pawn chains and shut down the board while looking for easy/safe trades, usually we call this "Simplifying the position." I'm seeing in a lot of your games, you play very well, win a minor piece, then lose it by miscalculating something too aggressive. When you winning, up a full piece in a 500 game, just keep your ideas simple, just take your time and try not to overcomplicate the board. It's very common, a lot of lower elo players win a knight or bishop and then think to themselves "Ok now how do I win" (not realizing they have already won), what they should be thinking is "Ok, as long as I don't get checkmated or give a piece back to him, I've completely won this game". Sure, you might lose the odd game here or there because you played too slow/solid and didn't capitalize your advantage, but you will lose a lot less playing slow than you are losing playing too aggressively.
So yeah, I'd recommend a heavier focus on puzzles, and dabble every so slightly into the simplest theory, maybe a learn some checkmate patterns etc. A lot of this game is just recognizing familiarities and patterns.. I promise you, you will hit 1000 rating easily in no time, just keep that discipline you have early game and apply it mid-late game, regardless if you are winning or losing.
In Sept when you joined Chess.com, you were consistently hovering around 250 rating for your first month of playing, you steadily climbed to 500, and have been gaining rating consistently now closing on 600. If you now today played against yourself from September, you would beat yourself 9/10 games easily. You are learning and improving more than you probably realize you are so just keep at it!
Goodluck and have fun!!!
I wrote a blog about expectations if interested.
https://www.chess.com/blog/foobarred1/playing-at-50-part-i-how-good-can-i-get
Goals should be personal. For me, breaking 1000 is an impossible dream - I burnt myself out trying to reach and maintain 900. And as long as you remain humble about meeting your personal, goal, I find that for the most part, people will allow you to celebrate. There will always be one or two people with much higher ratings who are going to snort condescendingly, but if you are good natured and recognize that you met a *personal* goal, then they generally won't have much of a foothold.
So yay you! I'm happy for you.
Goals should be personal. For me, breaking 1000 is an impossible dream - I burnt myself out trying to reach and maintain 900. And as long as you remain humble about meeting your personal, goal, I find that for the most part, people will allow you to celebrate. There will always be one or two people with much higher ratings who are going to snort condescendingly, but if you are good natured and recognize that you met a *personal* goal, then they generally won't have much of a foothold.
So yay you! I'm happy for you.
I would not expect to be able to compete against a professional basketball player, same goes for pro level chess players, I just have to accept that there are many people who are more skilled than I am and roll with the punches, as long as I am better than I was six months ago I feel victorious.
Don't reply inside a quote...
Don't reply inside a quote...
Stop telling people what to do for favor.
Goals should be personal. For me, breaking 1000 is an impossible dream - I burnt myself out trying to reach and maintain 900. And as long as you remain humble about meeting your personal, goal, I find that for the most part, people will allow you to celebrate. There will always be one or two people with much higher ratings who are going to snort condescendingly, but if you are good natured and recognize that you met a *personal* goal, then they generally won't have much of a foothold.
So yay you! I'm happy for you.
You will come back reading this post later this year or some time next year and think "why did I post this last time?" as you will have probably surpassed the 1000 mark.
I beg for coaching with personal messages
Yes, you do
What makes you avoid rapid? More cheaters in higher time controls or what?
Cheaters and stallers, yeah. It's probably not as bad as I imagine, but I know they exist and I'd rather not deal with them.
I don't know if "staller" is a common word. I mean people who stop playing when they're losing and let their clock run for 20 minutes.
Well, they're probably not "people" because it's hard for me to imagine an adult doing this. They're probably little kids.
I do get those, but I only play 10|0. If they abandon it's only 1min until they auto resign and I've noticed pretty much every single person I reported for stalling gets punished. It's not a big deal. I do imagine cheating becomes more of an issue above my rating though, but even then it's whatever as I prefer the time control and they do eventually get banned.