Class A player, how many hours to become one?

I definitely agree with that, there is no need for openings to reach Class A.  My first non-provisional rating was 1824 (see below), with opening knowledge only gleaned from a few game collectons.  There may be many ways to reach class A, but I think the easiest is by becoming a great analyst by solving lots of problems.

I may have known little about openings (and even strategy, endings, or anything else) when I played in my first tournament, but my analytics were probably close to expert level.  Every Class B and lower player I've ever played drops pieces/pawns, so it is as easy as calculating and following lines where you win material and avoiding lines where you lose material.  I believe that the fastest and easiest way to get pretty good (but not great) at this game is to focus almost exclusively on problem solving with a few game collections worked in.     

Ziryab wrote:

A solid opening repertoire is probably the least important element of chess skill for reaching class A, but important for rising above that level. My best wins have come in openings that I play infrequently and dimly understand.

---------------------------------------

dtrossen wrote:

I definitely agree with that, there is no need for openings to reach Class A.  My first non-provisional rating was 1824 (see below), with opening knowledge only gleaned from a few game collectons.  There may be many ways to reach class A, but I think the easiest is by becoming a great analyst by solving lots of problems.

I may have known little about openings (and even strategy, endings, or anything else) when I played in my first tournament, but my analytics were probably close to expert level.  Every Class B and lower player I've ever played drops pieces/pawns, so it is as easy as calculating and following lines where you win material and avoiding lines where you lose material.  I believe that the fastest and easiest way to get pretty good (but not great) at this game is to focus almost exclusively on problem solving with a few game collections worked in.  

  -----------------------------------------------------------

Musikamole

There are several players at my chess club who I see playing book moves, but would not be able to name them, i.e., Philidor Defense, Evans Gambit. They must have learned them from experience, not from a book.

So, even though they don't study opening theory, they do have their pet opening moves. Could this be considered an opening repertoire?

Example:

I have frequently played against someone who always follows my 1.e4, 2.Nf3 with the Philidor Defense, but when I mentioned that he must like to play the Philidor, he told me that he didn't know what it was called, nor does he know the names for any of the openings. 

What about blitz?

When I first tried to play blitz chess, my loses came mostly from time trouble, thinking and calculating, wondering what move to play next. Some time afterwards, I realized I needed to memorize some beginning moves if I was ever going to have a better chance of winning. So, I purchased a book on openings. I think this was at a time before I realized that this site had a way to look up moves, Game Explorer.  The book was overkill (Modern Chess Openings by Nick de Firmian), but at least I had a book where I could find better moves along the way.

The guys at my local club love to play 5 minute blitz, which is way too fast for me, but I see them happily banging out moves in rapid fashion, and the stronger ones drop fewer pieces, and win more often. Some of them have no idea what this or that opening is called, but they sure can play fast, and I would guess that in the first five or ten moves, they are playing from memory, because the moves are happening as soon as they can grab a piece and move it. Those first moves I would call their opening repertoire, and some know more beginning moves than others, just from playing lots of games.

Absolutely agree.

Calculus in a week to get a 5 on AP exam?

What is that?  A week course in how to use their calculator

Good point about analysis.  Masters may out prepare eachother in the opening and such, but I think it's a safe bet that the winner between two 1800 players is simply the better analyst.  Not the player with more theoretical knowledge, or even something like tactics trainer rating.

Don't be too impressed by people banging out moves (opening or otherwise).  Sometimes the moves are lousy.  Dropping pieces and everything (you and their opponent just don't notice).

Yes you have to move fast to do well in blitz, but moving so fast OTB that you're not using even a second on your clock is more showing off than anything about playing strength.

To do well, you need very fast recognition of threats and basic tactics.  A focus on forcing lines.  A familiarity with middlegame ideas and endgames helps too.  These are the areas that make blitz players strong.  In fact I'd say openings matter even less in blitz than they do in a tournament setting... unless of course you're accepting the invitation to gambits/ very sharp lines where opening traps will crush you if you don't know them (but that's your fault heh).

Least important?? so when u try to reach 2000 it's better to know no mainlines and play only on general principles/offbeat? 

That your best win comes from openings you don't really understand doesn't say anything.

Yes.

1800.

No, it's better to know some.

Yeah, that's sufficient.  Much more important to know common ideas of the middlegame structures you're getting.

owltuna wrote:

I'm goint to suggest that playing a lot of chess 960 might be very good for developing a good grasp of opening play in standard chess.

-------------------------------

That is quite clever. There is no possibility of memorized opening lines being of any help, since the pieces are placed in random spots. Yep. This would really put someone understanding of opening principles to the test.

For anyone wanting to be a Class A player, the best advice I can give is to listen to Dan Heisman and do what he says. Can I get a +1 shout out for that? :)

One thing that Heisman says about chess improvement really got me thinking. He says that since chess is our hobby, and not our profession, above all, we need to keep it fun. In other words, if doing tactics puzzles are not fun for you, but playing slow games are, then don't study tactics, even though you won't improve as fast, or maybe not improve enough to hit Class A.

For me it means this: even though by Heisman's advice, being a weaker player, that reading Reassess Your Chess by Silman is not that helpful for improving my chess, since what I need most is to improve my visualization, calculation and tactics (drop fewer pieces), It's perfectly fine by Heisman to read Silman's book, since I enjoy it, enjoy studying positional chess, even though it will do little to nothing with my rating/improvement - simple because chess is MY hobby, and not my profession.

Heisman will take the fun factor into account with his students, and not say, "Don't ever read that book until you hit Class A, because he would be violating one of his rules for improvement, which is to keep study time fun.

Mika_Rao wrote:

Musikamole wrote:

What about blitz?

Don't be too impressed by people banging out moves (opening or otherwise).  Sometimes the moves are lousy.  Dropping pieces and everything (you and their opponent just don't notice).

Yes you have to move fast to do well in blitz, but moving so fast OTB that you're not using even a second on your clock is more showing off than anything about playing strength.

----------------------------

It never occurred to me that my fellow club players could be banging out bad moves now and then, lol. Thanks.

However, I am pretty sure that our Expert players are banging out mostly good moves in the opening, and I say that because it looks similar, too me, like GM's banging out opening moves over at ICC. Both the Experts and GM's often come to the endgame with the material value balanced, which to me means that they are not dropping pieces in the beginning.

Still, which % of chess.com members have played 32 OTB tournaments ?

If you want an expert rating you need to play 1 OTB tournament per month.

hicetnunc wrote:

Still, which % of chess.com members have played 32 OTB tournaments ?

-----------------------------------------

From reading forum posts for a few years, it seems that only a small percentage of the chess.com members have easy access to OTB tournaments. For the serious players at my local club, they drive about 200 miles from the high desert (Barstow, Victorville, Hesperia, Apple Valley) to Las Vegas to compete in OTB tournaments. We do have USCF tournaments at the club, but the pool of players is really small - 8 to 10 players, and all of them are way better than me, with lots of OTB experience.

The internet is THE best place to play opponents from a large pool, from beginner to advanced, and always be able to get in some fun and competitive games, any day of the week. I would guess that the majority, if not most of the chess.com members play here because they don't have a club near by, or the closest club is small, and the rating range may not be a good fit.

The few times I have played on the ICC, where you pay to play, the pool of players in the beginning range 800 - 1200 is way too small, and I seem to always get paired with someone 100 to 200 points above me. I finally gave up with trying to get in a game with someone around my playing strength.

At chess.com, I can win some games. At ICC, I can't, and that is no fun, and chess is just a hobby, which I do for fun, not money, thank goodness!

I am not sure if anyone has said this, but you very well may never reach 1800, Musikamole, and frankly, it is a function of your age. An 1800 player is better than 90% of tournament players.

I am not sure if this is an perfect analogy, but if a 55 year old guitar novice asked what it would take to be better than 90% of people who take guitat playing seriously, you would admit that few people at that age could ever get there, regardless of practice.

I do not mean to discourage you. You may be able to reach it, I do not know.

@Musikamole : if chess is only a hobby, then you should focus on having fun, and let your rating take care of itself, rather than wonder how many hours are required to reach class A.

If class A must come one day, it will. If it doesn't, you'll still have enjoyed your games, which is the most important

Perhaps never. Most people don't.

To be an A class player you don't say << I will play chess 3h/day and I WILL BE an A class player>>

Who knows? You may be the world champion one day, may you don't.

These things aren't planed. You don't know what will happen.

It took me seven years of playing tournaments to get to 1800.  I have gained about 100 points per year from the beginning until now.

i went from losing against 1400 players to beat some 1900 players otb in around 200 hours of serious training, i spent around 60% of that time solving tactics puzzles the other 40% between strategic play, endgames and a little bit of openings.