Chess, TALENT or PRACTICE?
Sort:
Hello fellow chess players, as you can see my rating is approx (1250~). The problem is that I've been stuck at the same rating for a very long time now... I've been playing other strategy games as well such as ex . checkers, Snakes and ladders, poker, dice, playmobil, Lego and mouse trap..I even played monopoly the problem is even after all that my strategic thinking isn't any better
LOL I think if you do lots of LEGO you'll get really good at chess really I think your problem is your not doing enough Lego LOLOLOLOL and snake xD now that's a good strategy game just abandon chess and play snake you'll get real good LOL.
BeepBeepImA747 wrote:
I've been also drinking Vegetable juice because its good for the brain.
LOL I think if you do lots of LEGO you'll get really good at chess really I think your problem is your not doing enough Lego LOLOLOLOL and snake xD now that's a good strategy game just abandon chess and play snake you'll get real good LOL.
Now there's a real chess master LOLOLOL
BAHAHAHAHA
Vegetable juice BAHAHAHAHA
This is a troll post right?
Both, in most cases. 50% talent, 50% hard-working. Only few genius can say that they never needed to work hard to reach the top 50. 
Michael, unless you devote oh so much time to study and concentration, 1250 is your spot on the bell-shaped curve. Even with all the work, you may possibly gain a, say, 10% bump. No offense. Really. That's just biology. There are a tremendous number of reasons why you are 1250. Reflect and you'll see them. Embrace your number. You're better than many, many people. If you can't handle the reality, hang it up and move on to other stuff. I know I'll never get much better than 1400 no matter how much I study because I know I'm way too impatient in my play. I may beat a 1600-1700 person rarely if I spot a real blunder, but I'll never out position anyone of talent. I recognize all of this, but I still play for the thrill of catching that blunder. Besides, I note the additional qualities of affiliating myself with the game of chess...and so do many others in the World who can never attain your level.
Ankalyov wrote:
Thanks I play a lot of snakes and ladders and monopoly at home and I'm serious about it...
Both, in most cases. 50% talent, 50% hard-working. Only few genius can say that they never needed to work hard to reach the top 50.
GeneralBuzz wrote:
Michael, unless you devote oh so much time to study and concentration, 1250 is your spot on the bell-shaped curve. Even with all the work, you may possibly gain a, say, 10% bump. No offense. Really. That's just biology. There are a tremendous number of reasons why you are 1250. Reflect and you'll see them. Embrace your number. You're better than many, many people. If you can't handle the reality, hang it up and move on to other stuff. I know I'll never get much better than 1400 no matter how much I study because I know I'm way too impatient in my play. I may beat a 1600-1700 person rarely if I spot a real blunder, but I'll never out position anyone of talent. I recognize all of this, but I still play for the thrill of catching that blunder. Besides, I note the additional qualities of affiliating myself with the game of chess...and so do many others in the World who can never attain your level.
Yeah you're totally off. I started here 3 years ago at 1100, and just a couple months ago reached 1918 blitz. I got better almost entirely by just playing chess, with occasional tactic training. Chess is a combination of talent and practice, but imo the practice aspect is much more important. Put in the time and you should improve.
Michael_L25 wrote:
Ankalyov wrote:
Both, in most cases. 50% talent, 50% hard-working. Only few genius can say that they never needed to work hard to reach the top 50.
Thanks I play a lot of snakes and ladders and monopoly at home and I'm serious about it...
Well done, indeed! That's the key: the better you are in Monopoly, the better you will be on chess! That's the secret of chess that all the GMs always hid!
tooWEAKtooSL0W wrote:
I've been playing for like 10 years since I was young and practicing everyday... I ate broccoli and asparagus and took omega 3 and I'm still not better
GeneralBuzz wrote:
Michael, unless you devote oh so much time to study and concentration, 1250 is your spot on the bell-shaped curve. Even with all the work, you may possibly gain a, say, 10% bump. No offense. Really. That's just biology. There are a tremendous number of reasons why you are 1250. Reflect and you'll see them. Embrace your number. You're better than many, many people. If you can't handle the reality, hang it up and move on to other stuff. I know I'll never get much better than 1400 no matter how much I study because I know I'm way too impatient in my play. I may beat a 1600-1700 person rarely if I spot a real blunder, but I'll never out position anyone of talent. I recognize all of this, but I still play for the thrill of catching that blunder. Besides, I note the additional qualities of affiliating myself with the game of chess...and so do many others in the World who can never attain your level.
Yeah you're totally off. I started here 3 years ago at 1100, and just a couple months ago reached 1918 blitz. I got better almost entirely by just playing chess, with occasional tactic training. Chess is a combination of talent and practice, but imo the practice aspect is much more important. Put in the time and you should improve.
It is always interesting to understand that everyone have their limit. Enjoy playing or you will suffer chess, and it is not a good way!
cjxchess16 wrote:
Thank you fellow Greek. I was trolling BTW...
You can chose a opening (preferably sharp) that you like and follow one of the mainlines until to move 5. then use the engine and follow the best moves until you can get an advantage. For example, to prepare a opening as white you chose an opening and at some point you open the engine (must be at least 3000+ elo to trustable) and follow its suggestions, try a few options where you might play if you have the position as black, and see how the engine responds. Play a few games and congrats. You just learn how to use your opening to beat 1200s.
superman0101 wrote:
how can I forget my main source of brain food ;)
don't forget the red bull and protein shakes.
Dude you're going about it all wrong. Everybody knows that mastering tic tac toe is the key to chess greatness.
Jenga's the ultimate mind game if you ask me. Try playing more of that!
tooWEAKtooSL0W wrote:
GeneralBuzz wrote:
Michael, unless you devote oh so much time to study and concentration, 1250 is your spot on the bell-shaped curve. Even with all the work, you may possibly gain a, say, 10% bump. No offense. Really. That's just biology. There are a tremendous number of reasons why you are 1250. Reflect and you'll see them. Embrace your number. You're better than many, many people. If you can't handle the reality, hang it up and move on to other stuff. I know I'll never get much better than 1400 no matter how much I study because I know I'm way too impatient in my play. I may beat a 1600-1700 person rarely if I spot a real blunder, but I'll never out position anyone of talent. I recognize all of this, but I still play for the thrill of catching that blunder. Besides, I note the additional qualities of affiliating myself with the game of chess...and so do many others in the World who can never attain your level.
Yeah you're totally off. I started here 3 years ago at 1100, and just a couple months ago reached 1918 blitz. I got better almost entirely by just playing chess, with occasional tactic training. Chess is a combination of talent and practice, but imo the practice aspect is much more important. Put in the time and you should improve.
There are lots of points to cover in your brief response. First, blitz is one thing. The 45|45 rating, or similar, is another. Has that latter one also risen as high as well? Yes, practice helps tremendously in blitz because there is the huge factor of stress leading to blunder that can lead to lightning victory. This doesn't occur as much with 45|45. What have the blitz and 45|45 ratings curves look like over those three years for you? Did they both rise fairly quickly and start to plateau off? Were they gradual rises? Or, did they both start off slowly and then only lately pick way up?