They are not a little bit better, they are significantly better.
Rating calculator says, you will lose 90% of games vs someone +400 rating than you. ( u 1200 player will lose 90% to 1600 player)
Perhaps of interest to look at the topics chosen for a modern introductory chess book:
http://www.gambitbooks.com/pdfs/A_Complete_Chess_Course.pdf
I know this is starting to get off topic but what the heck happened here? The guy played like a complete idiot and got checkmate. Is this just bad luck or did this guy have a strategy I couldn't see? lol. Im white.
Why do you think black played like an idiot? Looks like the other way around to me.
They are not a little bit better, they are significantly better.
Rating calculator says, you will lose 90% of games vs someone +400 rating than you. ( u 1200 player will lose 90% to 1600 player)
I know how elo works, but still think that the difference is very small. What you say, is how it supposed to work, but in reality it doesn't. There many reasons, why it doesn't, like picking you starting elo, the nature of the game and many more. Of course, my own experience is inline with what I said, otherwise why to say it.
From your first post there, some of those tactics were quite nice for a 700-rated opponent to find, like 15...Nxc2, removing the defender. It's important to remember that low-rated players aren't stupid - many of them know a lot about how tactics work. What they struggle with is consistency. Become more consistent than them (at not blundering and at exploiting their blunders) and you'll rise through the ranks!
I think what Blakey said applies to this too. Lower rated players can play equally well as higher rated players if they play positions they know well, but higher rated players are far more consistent. They know more positions well and make less mistakes.
At the top one single mistake can cost you the game. High rated players simply don't make many mistakes. Below 1000 you can make a comeback after multiple mistakes and blunders.
Tactics really doesn't seem to be my issue, although I'll try practicing them for awhile and see if I improve. As far as I can tell, my opponents aren't leaving much in the way of tactics for me to try. When they do, I get them. And it's just suspicious as far as the ratings go, because once I break 950 or so the games start getting much easier. Maybe it's just because very low rated players do some weird unexpected things?
On the contrary every game you posted was decided by tactics. There is no point in learning openings or strategy if you keep hanging pieces or fail to punish your opponent's mistakes. You don't need to know anything beyond basic opening rules.
Also you make many one move threats which can easily be defended. So my advise would be to really calculate your opponent's response before you make a move and don't play hope chess.
I have started to stop doing this. A lot of my opponents do the same thing and if you're not careful it will lead to a better position for them. It only works if your opponent blunders lol which is less and less certain as your rating goes up.
You have had basically the same advice from several players that are much stronger than you yet you have still played only 2 slow games on chess.com, as against more than 1,700 Blitz games.
The unavoidable conclusion is that you are not serious about improving your chess.
Oh yes definitely. The fact that I'm continuing to play blitz games doesn't mean that I enjoy playing blitz games, it means that I'm not also trying to improve my chess. You got me man. That's totally logical how could I ever prove you wrong, you are a psychic genius. I'm playing 3 daily games right now but ig be a d bag to strangers online when they ask for help, you are a stellar person good job. I personally want to get my blitz rating to 1000 before I start playing more slow games. It's none of your business though and if you're going to be condescending don't expect me to reply kindly.
You have had basically the same advice from several players that are much stronger than you yet you have still played only 2 slow games on chess.com, as against more than 1,700 Blitz games.
The unavoidable conclusion is that you are not serious about improving your chess.
Oh yes definitely. The fact that I'm continuing to play blitz games doesn't mean that I enjoy playing blitz games, it means that I'm not also trying to improve my chess. You got me man. That's totally logical how could I ever prove you wrong, you are a psychic genius. I'm playing 3 daily games right now but ig be a d bag to strangers online when they ask for help, you are a stellar person good job. I personally want to get my blitz rating to 1000 before I start playing more slow games. It's none of your business though and if you're going to be condescending don't expect me to reply kindly.
... lots of stuff ... mostly irrelevant
You have had basically the same advice from several players that are much stronger than you yet you have still played only 2 slow games on chess.com, as against more than 1,700 Blitz games.
The unavoidable conclusion is that you are not serious about improving your chess.
Oh yes definitely. The fact that I'm continuing to play blitz games doesn't mean that I enjoy playing blitz games, it means that I'm not also trying to improve my chess. You got me man. That's totally logical how could I ever prove you wrong, you are a psychic genius. I'm playing 3 daily games right now but ig be a d bag to strangers online when they ask for help, you are a stellar person good job. I personally want to get my blitz rating to 1000 before I start playing more slow games. It's none of your business though and if you're going to be condescending don't expect me to reply kindly.
There is nothing condescending about pointing out the truth. I am no psychic genius but I am a reasonably good chess player that knows what it takes to improve.
Blitz is fun, but slow chess is satisfying AND leads to improvement. Blitz is not just a bad way to (try to) improve. It is also an effective way to make bad habits so entrenched that they are difficult to overcome. The best way to get your Blitz rating to 1000+ is to stop playing Blitz for a few months.
Not my business? You asked for advice on what you are doing wrong. That made it EVERYONE's business. You have received plenty of good advice, from me and others. Of course it is your right to ignore it, keep on asking (hoping for more palatable advice?), and keep playing lots of Blitz.
Good luck. I have no more advice to offer.
At this point, I feel like OP is mainly looking for attention. Looking at the amount of pages in this topic I suppose he has is doing well in this regard. I don't say this to be insulting It is my honest assessment of the situation, you can do whatever you want with it.
I mainly just don't feel the need to reply with respect to someone who was passive aggressive towards me. Read into it whatever you want though.
I mainly just don't feel the need to reply with respect to someone who was passive aggressive towards me. Read into it whatever you want though.
My contributions to this thread do not need any replies either respectful or otherwise.
If you really wanted to improve your chess you wouldn't be making a fuss about feeling aggrieved at my comments. You would take what I and others have written to heart (including the longer and carefully composed commentary on the game where you got mated on h1 by a knight on f2) and get to work.
Yes of course. You've read my mind again. I'm not replying to your comments because I find them rude as I said, but because I'm not improving at chess instead. Makes sense. And my replies definitely mean that I'm not taking people's comments to heart, because you can't both reply to comments *and* be reading them, that would be crazy.
I mainly just don't feel the need to reply with respect to someone who was passive aggressive towards me. Read into it whatever you want though.
My contributions to this thread do not need any replies either respectful or otherwise.
If you really wanted to improve your chess you wouldn't be making a fuss about feeling aggrieved at my comments. You would take what I and others have written to heart (including the longer and carefully composed commentary on the game where you got mated on h1 by a knight on f2) and get to work.
Yes of course. You've read my mind again. I'm not replying to your comments because I find them rude as I said, but because I'm not improving at chess instead. Makes sense. And my replies definitely mean that I'm not taking people's comments to heart, because you can't both reply to comments *and* be reading them, that would be crazy.
And yet you thought this wasnt rude:
"I know this is starting to get off topic but what the heck happened here? The guy played like a complete idiot..."
I do have to give you credit though. I missed it at first, but you have been here before. You actually have no desire to improve. You're doing your usual schtick.
I mainly just don't feel the need to reply with respect to someone who was passive aggressive towards me. Read into it whatever you want though.
My contributions to this thread do not need any replies either respectful or otherwise.
If you really wanted to improve your chess you wouldn't be making a fuss about feeling aggrieved at my comments. You would take what I and others have written to heart (including the longer and carefully composed commentary on the game where you got mated on h1 by a knight on f2) and get to work.
Yes of course. You've read my mind again. I'm not replying to your comments because I find them rude as I said, but because I'm not improving at chess instead. Makes sense. And my replies definitely mean that I'm not taking people's comments to heart, because you can't both reply to comments *and* be reading them, that would be crazy.
And yet you thought this wasnt rude:
"I know this is starting to get off topic but what the heck happened here? The guy played like a complete idiot..."
I do have to give you credit though. I missed it at first, but you have been here before. You actually have no desire to improve. You're doing your usual schtick.
Another mind reader. yes. Me asking for help was a grand conspiracy.
I think that in the end, it's just a matter of which path do you want to take in order to progress, and the fact that you're not taking the most optimized one is irritating some of the people here who have given you advices you don't seem to follow
As for me I personally think that any progressing path, slow paced or not, is fine as long as you have fun playing the game, and you'll end up getting better either way, simply more slowly
Though no need to be condescendant in your learning, the part where you say the guy played like an idiot isn't that true and I'd even say you were making even bigger blunders than he was
It is the best measure we have of a player's skill.
I mainly just don't feel the need to reply with respect to someone who was passive aggressive towards me. Read into it whatever you want though.
My contributions to this thread do not need any replies either respectful or otherwise.
If you really wanted to improve your chess you wouldn't be making a fuss about feeling aggrieved at my comments. You would take what I and others have written to heart (including the longer and carefully composed commentary on the game where you got mated on h1 by a knight on f2) and get to work.
Yes of course. You've read my mind again. I'm not replying to your comments because I find them rude as I said, but because I'm not improving at chess instead. Makes sense. And my replies definitely mean that I'm not taking people's comments to heart, because you can't both reply to comments *and* be reading them, that would be crazy.
Ironically, language is all about reading minds so yes, I can "read" your mind because of you writing here.
If that was how people were claiming to know what I was thinking then they would be saying that I clearly want to improve but prefer blitz games. My words have never said that I'm here for attention, or that I don't want to improve.
The win of a Pawn will win the game anyway, as long as White doesn't fall for some cheap tactical trick.