1400 Rated Chess.com player wants to get to 1800 in 3 months w/ PLAN OF ACTION

Wow,

You guys are AWESOME!!!  Most of you at least...lol

Anyways,  not this any of this matters but let me introduce myself a little more.

I have been unemployed for about 18mos now. Kinda by choice (The UE pay comes to an equivelence of $13-14/hr), which is really what has allowed me to play so much chess these days. I was a Licensed Mortgage Broker for 8yrs str8 before that and Top Loan Officer at the few companies I worked at during that 8 year stretch. Before that I broke all the records in the USA for National Fund Raising company I worked at. I set Production and Collection Sales records and sometimes feel like Dan Marino with some records that may never be broken   LOL

Now let me elaborate.  After stating all of that let me assure all of you that I am really just a nobody...lol  And wouldn't want any f**** other way.  I just spit that out to let the chess.com world know that I have plenty of determination, talent and IQ and I am just the type to stay at 1400 level until I'm told I can't and then watch me hit 1800 in 90 days.  We can do almost whatever we want to if our attitude is right, hard work and remember to remain teachable.  Isn't that right CENTERCOUNTER? :)

Now, you guys are what makes Chess.com and I posted that and came back not even 3hrs later and did not expect to see all that feedback.  I'm very grateful.

So, to follow up ... when Ashwath said the best way to 1800 in 90 days is to play a bunch of people rated 1000-1200,etc ... I was scratching my head... but I think he thought I meant just trying to hit that rating of 1800....lolllll    I guess that would be a practical plan of action to get there.  Not exactly what I meant but hell if it puts me at 1800 that way then I guess I would be an 1800 rated player.  It's interesting too cause it seems I have always tried to play those my ranking or higher (which is surely good at bettering me but may not boost my rating as quick)  ..what do you guys think ???  I mean if the chess rating is acurate(and I assume it is) then if I play for examply a sample of 750 games with players 200 pts higher than I and 750 games w/ players 200 pts lower ............then I should come out with the same ranking.     RIGHT?

Next...someone mentioned online vs live/blitz.  This seems true what he/she said cause I have noticed that my blitz ranking is an easy 100-150 pts lower then my turn based chess.  Also have noticed that my chess.com turn based ranking compared to another site I have played on (gameknot)  is 100 pts higher always then gameknow. Man, I struggle to keep at 1300 on that site.

3) OTB <vs> Online chess???      OTB I have very little experience with and have a USCF account (that is due to renew...just got their postcard in the mail)...but have only played 3 OTB USCF rated games in my life  (won 1 lost 2)/ from last year.  My thoughts to you guys on this is that with the digital age/information society we live in, is this a MUST to start to get my feet more wet in OTB games ?  Seems like I and about everyone else is just online these days. The USCF also mentioned something about online USCF coming soon.....         did any of you see/hear about this?

***4) COACH      centercounter brought this up a few times and I know I need/want one. $$$ is always a concern with extra stuff but I've got a little and considering my passion for Chess, I think centerc is right and I need to get on this...quick!  Especially if I am to come back to you guys in 90 days and scream look at me now....lol      No, seriously....if I could hit 1600 in 90 days, with a coach and reading a new chessbook every week, I would be content!  But centercounter seems to think it is very possible if one deticates themselves and he is 2k rated so he must know a little something.

A NM coach vs a GM was said to be a lot cheaper.  You guys know this guy ( GM Dzindzichashvilli ) on this site whom makes lots of videos for this site?  Well I spoke to him about a year ago by phone and he was very nice. He took about 15 or more minutes talking with me but like Centercounter or someone said ...  the GM's can charge much more than a NM.  He plainly let me know that he has charged upwards of $500/hr for some high end clients.  He referred me to a guy who plays on this site and he coached me a few times but not sure if he was the best fit for me.  I still talk to him on facebook though and he is cool guy.    So after all that rambling ...my q for this was.........."Can anyone recommend a good/fairly cheap NM coach on this site or any other" ?    I have wanted to talk with Charles Galofre and for some reason feel we would be on same wave lengh with coach/student relationship.

5) Long games <vs> Short games    -  Analyze both  wins, draws, losses.  analyze them all.                           -  I assume this means whether you win/lose in 9 moves  or win/lose/draw in 96 moves..........ANALYZE the games the same.   right?

6)  When practicing tactics ... review games from which they originally came.                 

Q's here....what is the best way to practice tactics?    with the tactics trainer on this site?  or by setting up games out of chess books ?   I am a little idiot on this so could really use feedback/suggestions on tactics. I keep hearing that 1400-1600 players need to be studying tactics more.

and last of all    (7)     ENDGAMES!              Yep..by the time I get to the endgame against opponents I am ready for the KILL              unfortunatley, I am usually out of ammo...lol    or in other words   don't have the endgame skills I would like to have.  Nothing in chess...........and I mean nothing hurts worse then to get that player who is ranked higher than I  ... to the end game just to blundder and have to resign or get checkmated.  

Again, you guys are awesome and it's a privaledge to be able to consult with you and be a small part of a whole. 

-SlimJimJoseyWales

Oh, I misread your original post, I thought you said you would ONLY play and not study when you were saying you knew that wouldn't work :)

You mentioned you wanted skill not just an inflated rating.  I thought for a bit about the best way to gain so much so quickly but basically have to conclude that normal advice wont work.  For example common advice is you devote more time to play than study from 1400-1800, and while this would build more solidly your skill I don't think it would be fast enough.

You'd likely need a method that would come off as gimmicky to many of us (or at least me anyway).  Consequently I believe although the forum has many experience individuals, that a very rare gain like this levels that playing field in that respect.

But here's my best shot

Strategy takes some time to absorb... it's not something you can learn and run with like you can tactics.  So due to the short time frame I'd have to suggest the overall plan aims for an aggressive tactical style.

Openings like the budapest, king's gambit, millner-berry and various wing gambits.  Your study time will focus on memorizing opening moves and doing tactical drills.

Then, maybe the first 2-3 weeks do nothing but book up (memorize opening moves) and solve tactical puzzles.  Resources like this site, chesstempo, and chessgames.com are useful.  After that I'd spend about 80% of your time playing.  Two hour game play blocks with 30 minute intervals where you make sure you didn't leave book first and then do tactical drills before getting more games.

Turn based this may be more difficult.  I'm not sure what kind of load to suggest (e.g. 10 games at once, 20, 30 etc).

Rudimentary endgame and strategy skills would be very useful.  Don't know if I'd go out of my way to get a coach for that one though.

Again this plan is a bit nuts, so remember my disclaimer (no exp seeing this type of gain happen really).

Good luck

In any case, I believe if you try to do the common "well rounded" approach (learn a little opening, endgame, strategy, tactics, etc) that this will be far too slow.

Keep in mind if you gain 400 points worth of skill in 3 months that you're either very talented and will go far, or, much more likely, you'll quickly hit a wall where you'll have to go back and fill in the gaps before getting any better.

hey waffle what is the gains from playing live chess opposed to turn based?

my friend Elliott plays live only and never plays turn based.  Can you build your skills/strategy knoledge quicker by playing live games?   should I play one or the other or do you think that it's ok to play a couple hrs of live games a day too?

I have been playing a bit of live games on chesscube.com     did u know that is a cash site and you can actually cash out money via paypal by winning chess tourneys?

You need a coach who is also a friend.  That's why I suggested going local instead of a GM.  In my opinion, the coach has to legitimately care about you and not just be after the buck.  A local NM is more likely to fill that bill than a GM that makes his living from the game, although I was lucky enough to work with GM Rashid Ziatdinov when he lived in Florida.

Best way to practice tactics - use trainer AND look up the games.  Only there will you understand how to create the positions where the tactics can occur.  I will give you an example that I call "if it quacks like a duck..."  There is an urban legend of a game between Gibaud and Lazard from a so-called French championship...

Obviously, this is very simplified.  I had a game against a 2300 who either didn't know this game or just forgot it.  I recognized the "seeds" of the position and was able to guile my opponent into the trap.  Please note that White stands very well even if Black doesn't fall into the trap.

The lesson is that tactics "books" teach you only the positions and not how to recognize the positions which lead to creating the opportunities where these tactics are possible.

I didn't know chesscube was a cash site, interesting.

As for chess skill... I mean, it's hard to know exactly what you want.  Do you want to be able to match an 1800 USCF player in an over the board tourney?  Do you want to be 1800 on any of the live chess here or at gameknot?  Or do you want an 1800 turn-based rating?  These are not only different difficulties they're plain ol' different skill sets too.

So when you ask which type of game builds more skill, I have to ask which rating do you want to be 1800.  Whichever it is, play that game type nearly exclusively.  The only reason to not play that game type would be for psychological purposes, switching it up to keep interest high.

I agree with you that there's a large psychological aspect to this type of thing.  I don't agree with the "tons of will power means no limits" stuff, but you'll have to have something awfully motivating to study/play 8 hours a day woudln't you?

I don't think I will forget game 1 as long as I live.  Never saw that one before but know it now. Thanks

Honestly - let's just forget the numbers.  What I expect out of the typical 1800 would shock you... honestly, as a USCF 2000 player, no 1800 player that I know has an inkling of what that chess.com study link offers.  Even experts such as I don't have that knowledge (although you can be sure that I will!).  You have a great resource in that link that KCO gave earlier - use it and work it.

ok ...I saved the link and will check it out now

thanks guys!

 Oh come on, 1800s are terrible, but they're not so bad they'd have no inkling 

Wafflemaster, take it from an Expert.  Even we don't have an inkling :)

Hi'centercounter, i did it in few months unrated to high [1850 drop to 1828] after 2 loses, patient is the key.

 That's what I like to read... the can-do spirit!  At 16, I went from 1600 to 1800 USCF rating over the summer, so I know it's possible.  During that time, I lost to exactly one expert and drew or beat all other experts, and even beat a Master a couple times.  I plateaued in the 1900s before making my next jump.  I made Master at age 24 before life, work, and school got in the way and I just stopped having time or energy for studying, and I fell back.  I reached Master one more time in 1994, peaking at 2212, but with work, health, and other interests, my rating slipped. 

Good luck. I'm also trying to get myself to around 1800 OTB and Blitz, but I'm giving myself a year to do it. I'm putting in anywhere between 3-6 hours a day (3 on working days) and feel that I should be able to reach this level with that study. I'm reading/playing on a ratio of about 4/1 (Fischer did 10/1 I read did you know?) , doing a lot of tactics, then going over mastergames and other books (My System etc, openings and endings) so hopefully I get can there with that plan too. I will check out the link given as it sounds promising too.

 I'm sure slimjimjoseywales won't take it the wrong way but there's a whole gender that may want to have words with you   

 And of course you would know that, having never set foot inside a tournament hall?

And it has nothing to do with political correctness, it has to do with not being a jackass

An expert I often play with (he's been between 2000-2150 for 20+ years) knows tons of strategy and endgames... at least relative to what I see from that link. In fact much more than he's able to make use of in-game. For example the dozen or so reciprocal zugzwangs of rook vs rook and knight endgame, and how to drawn and win from correct/incorrect moves. He knows things like the bishop and knight mate so well he did it to me in blitz with less than 1 min left on his clock.

Also I think sub-masters are weak enough that there are many ways to get to 1800 or expert... i.e. even if you're an expert I can't quite take your word for what all experts do or don't know I think we can see this in tournaments.

Although I'm quite aware of how little players know. Silman has described IMs along the lines of taking shots in the dark and relying on a hope and a prayer to win games. And at least for myself, I know I have tons of room to work on absolutely everything.  (certainly including KCO's link.)

Some know more, some know less.  Of course we can't lump "all experts" into a bunch, but there are some generalities (again not 100% applicable), IMHO being a better "feel" for where pieces belong and probably a generally lower "gross blunder" rate.  In other words, even if we can't always verbalize the positional "rule", there is an implicit understanding.

Hi, you could try look at these http://www.youtube.com/user/DraganLalic?feature=watch he is a very good player and explains his moves. I learned a lot from him.