plutonia wrote:
You can be a genious but at some point somebody will have taught you that to calculate how 795 was before a 4% increase you have to punch 795/1.04 in the calculator.
why did nobody ever tell me this
Can an average person ever break 2000?
Sort:
that gif is amazing haha
Gaali wrote:
Not sure if this is elsewhere as I haven't read all the pages on this topic. But check out www.roadtograndmaster.com where a bloke attempted something similar and wrote a blog about the journey
Very Interesting. Thank you.
I am surprised (haven't read into details) that a serious effort to improve from "normal life" leads only to +150 ELO in 2 years.
And being a student, I assume he is still young.
jclheriteau wrote:
Gaali wrote:
Not sure if this is elsewhere as I haven't read all the pages on this topic. But check out www.roadtograndmaster.com where a bloke attempted something similar and wrote a blog about the journey
Very Interesting. Thank you.
I am surprised (haven't read into details) that a serious effort to improve from "normal life" leads only to +150 ELO in 2 years.
And being a student, I assume he is still young.
I read the link and it was interesting, but he was aiming for GM!! starting from 1880 ish and after two years had broke 2000. Well done to the blogger trying to achieve this and posting his progress however, I don't know what it adds to this argument of average + hard work and dedication to 2000 question. If anything it only supports the possibility because he hit 2000 in two years at the same time as studying for a degree, a girlfriend to pacify and a host of other hobbies.
GM is such a big ask and a differnt level of what we are talking about. (If the question was could an average person get GM then that would be different perhaps, unless you had a Polgar dad maybe.) Of course he was starting from 1800 but it only took him two years to break 2000 even under such part-time focus. Could not say 10 years under the same conditions take a person from 1500 to 2000? In my book clearly yes.
Jan 2, 2013
0
#706
bigpoison wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
bigpoison wrote:
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
Isn't it unlikely that any one generation is smarter than any other generation?
You could, probably, argue that humanity is getting dumber with each successive generation since, I don't know, Roman times.
Since natural selection no longer selects for humans, it's likely that the average Roman of 200 BC was more intelligent than the average American of 2000 AD.
The dumbass shit people can do nowadays and still come out unscathed would have gotten them killed years ago.
There's pretty good evidence that reading forced biological adaptations in the brain that made humans smarter. It stands to reason, thus, in the twilight of the books, that humans may be on a path to less intelligence.
What's a book?
A file that you download to your Kindle, Nook, iPad, or similar device. Formerly a stack of clay tablets containing cuneiform.
I thought a book was a packet of matches or a bet.
'Book' is also the sum total of chess opening theory.
And for the mathematician Erdős, "The Book" was where God kept all the most beautiful proofs of mathematical theorems. For him to say that a proof was "in The Book" was his highest praise.
Jan 2, 2013
0
#710
Then there was a chessplayer who was a Book, but with two umlauts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eero_B%C3%B6%C3%B6k
Very interesting. It seems Böök also wrote several chess books.
I didn't play chess at all until college. My first rating was at age 22, it was 1100 (USCF). I broke 2000 recently (peak of 2012) before dropping back to the high-1900's. I still consider myself quite "average" without much special talent for the game & still quite capable of playing extremely badly.
So I believe there is hope for anyone willing to put in enough time & effort (for the most part I've been too lazy to read chess books but I do watch a ton of videos - on chess.com & previous chesslecture.com) and do a lot of tactics.
If you're extremely lucky like I was you can break 2000 on your birthday, winning a $200 prize & a $20 dollar bet with a friend that you won't accomplish it. 
"You could, probably, argue that humanity is getting dumber with each successive generation since, I don't know, Roman times.
Since natural selection no longer selects for humans, it's likely that the average Roman of 200 BC was more intelligent than the average American of 2000 AD."
Funny this is mentioned, there was an article recently suggesting just this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/nov/12/pampered-humanity-less-intelligent
http://hipcrime.blogspot.com/2012/11/are-people-getting-dumber-and-less.html
All anyone has to do is read this and you will have the answer sorely sort......
No I can't. I will never break 1000.
Your question answered : )))
I'm a 1200 player: average.
I "usually" think of myself as pretty smart, and can play up a bit from 1200 if I really focus, put in some effort thinking through consequences. There are two really big crutches that are making the game less fun for me though: one, the analysis board and two, memory. The analysis board permits effortless exploration through the various likely possibilities. It turns up your ability if you're willing to put in more time to do the homework, and THAT seems like a short cut to trade effort for skill. By "memory" I mean the ability and effort to memorize the many games and situations. I was depressed to learn there's a book in Russia of all the games, and that part of being great at chess is knowing them. To the extent that my games are scripted (and I suppose they all are, 100%) and my loss is a foregone conclusion provided i were playing a good player who knows the game instead of another chump like me, I find it disheartening. I want chess masters to be geniuses, and skill founded on insight, cunning and bravery, not memorization. Is there a way to think about it to restore the magic for me? I have no heart and surely inadequate memory, to start memorizing things like a robot in order to get better.
It must be possible to crack 2000 on this site for an average player.
How do I know?
Earlier today I was dropping off a trophy at my opponent's home when I noticed a comment calling him a rude loser. Not what I'd thought, so I checked out the guy who left the comment.
Well, he was "strong", closing in on 2000, winning over 75% of his games, so beating a 14-1500 player should be easy and go without comment. No need to abuse somebody that you are 95% likely to beat.
But look closely at his stats....best win... 1577. Average opponent ....1364
What I don't get is how he can get such a high rating. 200pts difference usually comes out as +12 win/+4 draw' -4 loss, and the opposite if you enjoy kicking down to significantly weaker players. This guy is playing 500/600 pts weaker, but somehow his rating goes up. WHY?
Jan 3, 2013
0
#717
astronomer999 wrote:
It must be possible to crack 2000 on this site for an average player.
How do I know?
Earlier today I was dropping off a trophy at my opponent's home when I noticed a comment calling him a rude loser. Not what I'd thought, so I checked out the guy who left the comment.
Well, he was "strong", closing in on 2000, winning over 75% of his games, so beating a 14-1500 player should be easy and go without comment. No need to abuse somebody that you are 95% likely to beat.
But look closely at his stats....best win... 1577. Average opponent ....1364
What I don't get is how he can get such a high rating. 200pts difference usually comes out as +12 win/+4 draw' -4 loss, and the opposite if you enjoy kicking down to significantly weaker players. This guy is playing 500/600 pts weaker, but somehow his rating goes up. WHY?
We're not talking about this site cus then we would have answered it first page.
Well honestly an average person (me included) might just reach the 2000 elo at chess.com if only those higher rated players wont run out on us lower rated players (in the fear of an upset and lossing rating points).If a 2000 elo or higher would play a 1300 elo guy anytime on this site then it is reachable.
plutonia wrote:
ScorpionPackAttack wrot
What if people figure out the principles behind the problems and apply them?
Of course: to pass psychometric tests you MUST practice. Mostly for the numerical test, where you have to calculate stuff from tabs and graphs incredibly fast. You can be a genious but at some point somebody will have taught you that to calculate how 795 was before a 4% increase you have to punch 795/1.04 in the calculator.
If someone has taken algebra they should be able to solve this problem without needing to remember a trick like that. And by the way I was never taught that trick :p
You just think it out and write X + X*0.04 = 795 and solve.
Jan 3, 2013
0
#720
konhidras wrote:
Well honestly an average person (me included) might just reach the 2000 elo at chess.com if only those higher rated players wont run out on us lower rated players (in the fear of an upset and lossing rating points).If a 2000 elo or higher would play a 1300 elo guy anytime on this site then it is reachable.
Obviously a 2000 rated player can reach 2000 regardless whether or not they decide to play low rated players from that point on.
On another note that isn't a good way for someone close to 2000 to get there. I think I am about 50 points from getting(back to) 2000. So if I only played 1300's it would take me 50 games to reach 2000(and I would have to beat EVERY one). ON the other hand if I lost one game I would lose about 40-50 point(I have done it before haha)
With training, easily
Troll or idiot?
I'm not either! It's true!!! Just a lot of training!!! I'll prove it to you. I'll break 2000 in 2 years. Otherwise, you can say I'm wrong.