not bad just keep playing and analyze your games so that you constantly build a lot of experience
Is my progress slow ?
Sort:
Jul 25, 2023
0
#3
Nobody knows the answer to this. One thing is for certain though, no one, ought to measure their own ability based on other peoples previous success. Why, because everyone is different, no one knows why others do well while others do worse in a particular area. All I can say is don't compare your progress to the progress of others, that simply isn't going to work. Instead, make your own personal records. Be your own opponent.
I guess your right @Fizzleputts . I should rather focus on my own instead of comparing other peoples progress.
Thank you
Thank you
Jul 25, 2023
0
#6
You can start at 100 elo? This explains some things I've posted about elsewhere. But no, you are not doing badly to be basically 1000 after 3 months. Only, I would say, you probably were more than 100 at the start, so some of the progress isn't real--it just took a while to overcome an artifically low start--but whatevs. You are doing fine.
Jul 25, 2023
0
#7
All those "new players" that have higher rating, aren't new players. If they started an acct, and are winning games right away at 800-900-1000 off the bat, chances are they've been playing a while.
Yes very slow
Jul 25, 2023
0
#9
Hi! To increase your rating, you need to put in some effort and time to become a better player. Results will come sooner or later. If you’re interested in developing your chess skills, you could read my post on my blog: https://www.chess.com/blog/maafernan/chess-skills-development
Good luck!
Not slow at all. You've made solid progress. If you feel your progress isn't where you want it to be, maybe a coach would help, or try to find solid plans or lessons to practice along with analyzing your games.
Qual melhor abertura para iniciantes???
EviLOverMind wrote:
But if you want a fair answer then... your "progress" doesn't exist.
I am curious, you're a much better player than I am, what would a year of progress look like in your eyes, a reasonable amount, average progress for someone after a year? Genuinely interested in perspective from a high rated player.
EviLOverMind wrote:
MeatMonsterMan wrote:
EviLOverMind wrote:
But if you want a fair answer then... your "progress" doesn't exist.
I am curious, you're a much better player than I am, what would a year of progress look like in your eyes, a reasonable amount, average progress for someone after a year? Genuinely interested in perspective from a high rated player.
In my eyes normal progress is when you reach 1500-1700 in one year from scratch.
u have been playing for 4 years and are 2200 only
EviLOverMind wrote:
cogadhtintreach wrote:
EviLOverMind wrote:
MeatMonsterMan wrote:
EviLOverMind wrote:
But if you want a fair answer then... your "progress" doesn't exist.
I am curious, you're a much better player than I am, what would a year of progress look like in your eyes, a reasonable amount, average progress for someone after a year? Genuinely interested in perspective from a high rated player.
In my eyes normal progress is when you reach 1500-1700 in one year from scratch.
u have been playing for 4 years and are 2200 only
1. I never said that my own progress was so good. I didn't study chess properly when I started.
2. Only? You're 1500 after more than two years. LMAO.
I'd like to see when you'll reach 2200... Most likely never
Im 1900
EviLOverMind wrote:
cogadhtintreach wrote:
EviLOverMind wrote:
MeatMonsterMan wrote:
EviLOverMind wrote:
But if you want a fair answer then... your "progress" doesn't exist.
I am curious, you're a much better player than I am, what would a year of progress look like in your eyes, a reasonable amount, average progress for someone after a year? Genuinely interested in perspective from a high rated player.
In my eyes normal progress is when you reach 1500-1700 in one year from scratch.
u have been playing for 4 years and are 2200 only
1. I never said that my own progress was so good. I didn't study chess properly when I started.
2. Only? You're 1500 after more than two years. LMAO.
I'd like to see when you'll reach 2200... Most likely never
rapid is real chess, IDC about blitz and bullet cos its not real chess, also Im 14 and 1900, ur 37 and 2200, I think I will easily overtake you
EviLOverMind wrote:
@cogadhtintreach
I've seen many noobs like you. They always say that they are only xteen and they will be GMs very soon . And, almost always they can't even break 2000 at blitz.
You're NOT 1900. You're 1500 at best! And most likely even lower than that. Chess.com rapid ratings on lower levels are VERY-VERY inflated.
I never said that blitz is "real chess". Of course you should play longer time controls if you want to improve. But blitz ratings a better to estimate skill of a player. Blitz ratings are closer to reality.
If you think I'm dumping your "real level" then try to play a few OTB tournaments and you'll see that even 1500 is exaggeration.
I dont think I will get GM, of course not. I am 1900. Blitz is not a good indecation of somebodys true strength cos it is further from classical than rapid. Also I dont care about my blitz rating, and just sac loads of pieces for attacks, check my games if you dont believe me.
Regarding your OTB comment, I am one of the best player from my country for my age, check my blog about my national champonship if you want proof.
I took the time there just to clear stuff up, but I wont be responding anymore cos there is a 99.9% chance that u are just trolling.
No need to argue, Appreciate the response from EviLOverMind, it's interesting to see what I should try to aim for in the eyes of someone who is that high rated, and plays OTB. You're both much better players than me, as for overtaking EviL, why talk? It's cheap, I don't doubt you, if it happens it will happen.
Personally I like how blunt he is, appreciate the insight!
cogadhtintreach wrote:
EviLOverMind wrote:
@cogadhtintreach
I've seen many noobs like you. They always say that they are only xteen and they will be GMs very soon . And, almost always they can't even break 2000 at blitz.
You're NOT 1900. You're 1500 at best! And most likely even lower than that. Chess.com rapid ratings on lower levels are VERY-VERY inflated.
I never said that blitz is "real chess". Of course you should play longer time controls if you want to improve. But blitz ratings a better to estimate skill of a player. Blitz ratings are closer to reality.
If you think I'm dumping your "real level" then try to play a few OTB tournaments and you'll see that even 1500 is exaggeration.
I dont think I will get GM, of course not. I am 1900. Blitz is not a good indecation of somebodys true strength cos it is further from classical than rapid. Also I dont care about my blitz rating, and just sac loads of pieces for attacks, check my games if you dont believe me.
Regarding your OTB comment, I am one of the best player from my country for my age, check my blog about my national champonship if you want proof.
I took the time there just to clear stuff up, but I wont be responding anymore cos there is a 99.9% chance that u are just trolling.
I'll check out the blog, despite the little argument between you guys, it's impressive where your chess level is at considering your age, I am jealous. To me you are both good players, and perhaps as you say, you may overtake him, only time will tell.
Thank you