Anyone Played 1000 Games?

I've played 2178 USCF rated games (Standard Time Control - Over the Board).  December Rating is 2124.

So 1000 Games should give a person 1100 rating minimum.

It completely depends.

Maybe I should add to my list of biggest chess misunderstandings... that chess performance isn't just a question of time.  Someone who spends 1 year can be better than someone who spends 10 years.  Type of work (work hard, and use effective methods) together with talent means a lot.

Getting at least 100 games in as a beginner is important before any studying really... so that's important, go ahead and do that.  But games by themselves mean very little after that.

I'm willing to bet that theres no one out there on chess.com who's rating is below 1100 who has played 1000+ games.

It is a question of time until you reach your limit of basic understanding and lack of critical drop a piece mistakes.(oops unprotected piece, oops etc). .

Anyone who has played 1000 games will not knowingly queen sac for nothing. or even knight sac without cause.

On here, over the last year and some change, I've played somewhere in the neighborhood of 13000 games. And please don't tell me to get a life. My December issue of Chess Life arrived yesterday. 

waffllemaster wrote:

Ziryab wrote:

waffllemaster wrote:

Most players have played many thousands of games.

It doesn't correlate well to rating.

My rating would be higher if I had played fewer games.

+1 to that (unfortunately).

And me

Do you think players 1400 + can fall for the Blackburne gambit?

Yeah, well, being able to not sac your queen or knight inexplicably for nothing will ensure your rating is above 500 so... I mean that's not even about games that's just common sense.

Being able to eliminate 1 move blunders though (oops I didn't see that was undefended and now he captured it) is a matter of practice... but like I said before that's not number of games, it's if you're focusing on that and trying hard.

No one with 1000+ games with a sub 1000 rating?  Online chess that's probably true.  Blitz chess though I wouldn't be so sure there isn't someone out there.  Some people play for fun and don't improve at all.  (And some people blitz just isn't their thing).

I don't play Bc4 so I had to look this up.

In a blitz game if my opponent's rating was low I'd probably take the pawn and lose :p (but then I'd know the trap and not fall for it again).  Against a higher rated player I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and not go pawn grabbing in the opening and just make some developing move.

In a tournament game I'd calculate it out and realize it's bad.

I'd wager in my life I've played over 1000 games. I've never once played blitz. Most of those were over the board with friends and no time limit other than lifes hinderences. No real way to know exactly how many....