ChrisWainscott wrote:
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.
Sounds right too.
Class A player, how many hours to become one?
Sort:
HectorPerez wrote:
ChrisWainscott wrote:
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.
Sounds right too.
Some people can make it faster with the same amount of work, some slower, some never.
Jun 19, 2014
0
#124
That's true. However, as mentioned earlier in this topic, it isn't just about the amount of work, but rather the type of work. Or, perhaps more accurately, the quality of the work involved.
For example, I could spend years mindlessly playing blitz and bullet, thousands of games in hundreds of hours. OR I could spend that same amount of time deliberately working on specific aspects of my game: solving tactical problems, learning strategic aspects (openings, endgames, etc.), and focusing on my weak points. Although I could make progress in both scenarios (and I'm not saying there's anything wrong with speed chess nor that slow solving of problems is the only way to improve), the latter one would more likely prove beneficial in the long run and speed up my improvement.
Jun 19, 2014
0
#125
I did it in 2 years, studying for my own. After 4 years I am now close to 2100 Fide. Its all a question of motivation, age and talent.By the way, you dont need to play 1 tournament per month as some people said here, thats trash. I played 6 (!) open tournaments in my whole life, getting many rating points for each of it. Its more important to play on a high level than to be rated high. When you play good, you will achieve your rating anyway.
Jun 19, 2014
0
#126
Very impressive. Till, would you be able to provide the link to your FIDE listing to confirm this?
Jun 19, 2014
0
#127
Til is 16, and as he said, " Its all a question of motivation, age and talent"...it is much easier to make jumps like this when younger.
Well done, Til!
Jun 19, 2014
0
#128
Thanks. I would but as long as I am underaged I cant do that. I think my Blitz rating shows my playing strentgh. Anyway I think I am lucky because youth players normally have advantages in improving in chess, because they learn much faster. Cheers, Till
Jun 19, 2014
0
#130
Depends on how you train. If you seriously work on your game 2 years is realistic. If you focus on openings as most do, then you won't make it.
Your evaluation needs to improve as well as calculating skill. Find out why you lose your games and correct it so not to repeat the same mistakes.
If you didn't blunder or make a mayor mistake but lost because the opponent was better.. that is when should start working on an opening repetoir.
It is so important to evaluate. Who is better, who is worse, maybe its equal. Why? Because when you calculate you have to evaluate the end of the variation too to find out if it is in your favor. So they are linked together tightly.
I am curious, age is often cited as an advantage. It may be so, practically. But is age itself the advantage, or is it the massive amounts of free time, coupled with the youthful ignorance of not yet having learned what things are important in life?
rtr1129 wrote:
I am curious, age is often cited as an advantage. It may be so, practically. But is age itself the advantage, or is it the massive amounts of free time, coupled with the youthful ignorance of not yet having learned what things are important in life?
Part of it are stressors, sure. Kids don't even have to feed themselves much less go to work and pay rent, or maintain relationships.
From what I've read, the real advantage though is the brain itself. Especially young kids with their much superior neuroplasticity, are soaking up information every day. Think about how much kids learn just by having a routine day on the weekend of playing video games, eating, and sleeping. Kids are learning new words, experimenting with new ideas, social cues, and on and on. And that's with no effort, they're just existing. To learn that many new things an adult would need closer to a week! And they'd have to work at it!
Jun 20, 2014
0
#135
rtr1129 wrote:
I am curious, age is often cited as an advantage. It may be so, practically. But is age itself the advantage, or is it the massive amounts of free time, coupled with the youthful ignorance of not yet having learned what things are important in life?
Both. They are cumulative, as kids also benefit from a much better memory, which is handy to pick tons of patterns without even having to care about it 
...and let's not forget stamina, so that you can still calculate correctly after 3-4 hrs. at the board...
Jun 20, 2014
0
#136
If anyone just breezed over Mika's post, do not miss what she said...the key word is neuroplasticity. To simplify things, as your brain ages, it "hardens", and learning becomes increasingly more difficult. Click on the the link for a more complete explanation.
Jun 20, 2014
0
#137
In USCF play, I actually achieved an 1800 rating just by not blundering, dropping pieces, or falling for mating attacks. So I would say simply an year if you are serious about reaching 1800
1800... Just don't hang stuff and that should be enough! I made 1800 by my third tournament (from 1500).
Yeah, if you play when you're a kid, you don't need to know much. It's just a little sickening to see analysis of, say, 2300 teens who dismiss good moves or glaze over bad moves because they (apparently) only got there by good calculation / tactics / endurance.
Unfortunately, if you're an improving adult, you can't take the path of "just don't blunder."
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.
Sounds right.