Common rating plateaus

That's who I am getting matched up with.  Not like I chose to play the 800 rated players...

I guess you already know it, you can set a rating range of opponents here.

If one is playing in blitz tournaments, how does one avoid the 800-ish players in the sub-1200 tourneys?

You are right, though, I don't use a rating filter/option even outside tourneys.  It seems elitist, somehow.  I just play the people I am presented with and I don't cherry-pick opponents to nurse my rating.  I am starting to gather reading the forums that the rating system as it sits fosters players that coddle their ratings.

Maybe you can help me with that...I notice that you recently gained 30 rating points by beating the same player 9 times in a row...nicely done.

..

You can use values such as +100 for the max and -100 for the min. That way you always play opponents within 100 points of your rating and the range adjusts as your rating changes. I would hardly call that coddling or cheating. It's just getting paired up with even challengers.

If you beat somebody nine times in a row, then the opponent had to keep agreeing to try again and try again and try again. That can not be held against you in any way. It's just each player playing the games they want to play.

There is nothing wrong with your approach during tournaments, but your record has to be even better to improve your rating. When Fischer beat Spassky for the World Championship, his rating went down because he allowed too many draws based on their respective ratings.

Plateaus vary from player to player.  As for myself, notice how long it takes to go up 100 points.  Below is when I first hit each 100 point plateau.  I think the slowdown is noticable:

1100 - October 1996 (Provisional - 5 Games)

1200 - Bypassed

1300 - Bypassed

1400 - August 1997 (Provisional - 12 Games) 

1404 - First Established Rating - October 1997

1500 - February 1998

1600 - Bypassed

1700 - June 1998 (Jumped from 1567 to 1705 in a single supplement)

1800 - Bypassed

1900 - April 1999 (Jumped from 1797 to 1904 in a single supplement)

2000 - August 2001

2100 - May 2013

2200 - Never (yet!)

+1

No point in giving a +1 to 13 month bump...the sarcasm is lost because some of the people responded to have been banned since and their replies are long gone from this dead thread.

I didnt pay attention to how old it was 

That's how the terrorists win... ;)

Actually my rating plateau was 2550. After that my ability stayed the same for a very long time.

What I learned each year [knowledge gained about chess] was counter balanced by  ups and downs in cogitive abilities.

Sorry about the bump... I didn't notice the age and let the terrorists win.

It happens :).

There's a "rating plateau" ever 200 points.  They're called Classes.  Every 400 points is a qualitative leap in playing strength.

Most players achieve at most, 1, 2, maybe 3, qualitative leaps during their entire chess career -- IF they stick with it, and work rather hard.

So do the math, and save yourself a boat load of keystrokes.

Typically, after 40 years old, everything starts to fade, especially speed chess abilities.  In that case, grow your chess knowledge, and play slower time controls.  Simple.

Patrick, it would be interesting to know what you focused on more at various levels because your level went straight up too but yet you improved steadily after the early gain. I hit 1800 & plateaued, you improved further. You seem to know a lot of theory & key strategic thinking in certain structures (I've read some of your opening discussions). Maybe studying certain things should only be done at certain levels. I never focused on openings much (maybe I should), heavy middlegame type stuff, some endings. My ratings graph is bizarre. I started around 1500 & basically went straight to over 1800 pretty fast....... then nothing. No improvement. Even though I'm sure I know much more strategically than I ever did. I never stuck with it as anyone can see from my tournament history. I've thought of being serious about improving like when I first started but its such a commitment. I've even quit a few times as y'all can see. I'm going to try to break away from this plateau, I'll see what happens over the next year & a half. I don't know if it will work, I'm not so young anymore.

.......& ponz, how about you? What's a general overview of how you got strong? I know it involved all the stages because you can't win a U.S. championship otherwise. But early on, did you ignore openings & focus on endgames & tactics or more middlegame strategy? Before you plateaued at your peak you got to that level somehow, can you share a bit about that? When you hit various plateaus along the way what did you do?

MrDamonSmith wrote:

.......& ponz, how about you? What's a general overview of how you got strong? I know it involved all the stages because you can't win a U.S. championship otherwise. But early on, did you ignore openings & focus on endgames & tactics or more middlegame strategy? Before you plateaued at your peak you got to that level somehow, can you share a bit about that? When you hit various plateaus along the way what did you do?

I lost the first 100 games I ever played. Against my father. Then I won a game. And soon after drew and won and soon after was winning 3/4 the games when my father quit.

At that point I knew chess was a game of skill and logic.

I was always good at games. The best bridge player in my family [we played together] at age 9. Am still very good at bridge.

My childhood was terrible [won't go into that] and it gave me a very large inferiority complex.  But here was something I could do very well!

I was playing postal chess at age 15. But before that would take on the very best adult players in my home town of Decatur, Illinois and held my own and then some.

Also at age 18 my parents gave me a all paid trip to Omaha Nebraska [our family fortures went up and down like a yoyo and this was a very  up year]where I got to play in the US Open. 12 games.  I had little opening theory and only a very basic knowledge of endgames.  My very first game I had Black and won from an expert. However, the 2nd game was vs a well known master and he got me in the opening where I allowed a little but easy combination that I did not see and lost my queen at about the 12th move. [and I quickly resigned]

Final score was 5 wins and 5 loses and 2 draws, enough for a Class A Rating. Grandmaster Bisguier won the tournament.

Once I did a little end game combo and Paul Benko was watching and was delighted.

The next tournament I scored 4 1/2 out of 5 and won.

Then I hit a slow growth from about 1850 to 2080 which lasted for 12 years. However my postal [correspondence chess] was much better than my over the board chess. About 200 rating points better. This was way before the computers.

There were health reasons why my over the board was not so good.  I had a very severe sleeping problem. Would go 2 or 3 days without sleep and this affected my over the board more than my correspondence chess.  In correspondence chess it does not matter so much if you have a sleep or health problem as you always have time to make your moves.  

Then in 1973 the US Open was Chicago and I decided to play even though I was working full time and still had the severe sleeping problem and I hated driving to Chicago. In Chicago I won my first 3 games and then had to play the Illinois Champion. This game lasted until 230 in the morning and ended in a draw.  But then I had to drive to Decatur, Go to work at 8AM and later drive back to Chicago.

My 5th round game was against GM Bisguier [he had won the tournament when I was in Omaha years before]

I won from Bisguier with a two pawn sac Gambit. Then I played the Chicago champ and won with Black.  After 6 rounds I was tied for the lead of the tournament with 3 others  --777 players. [5 1/2 out of 6]

However the lack of sleep was getting to me.  I lost my 7th round game to a very strong master from Canada.  His opening theory was better than mine.  And for the 8th round I played an old friend Stevan Tennant who was a former Illinois Champion.  I had a plus score against him before that 8th round game. In the game I quickly obtained a 2 pawn advantage.

But then we got into a rook and pawn endgame and I could not think-my head spinning. He finally managed a draw and I will never forget his reaction. "You were up two pawns and you couldnt win!" "You were up two pawns and couldnt win!"  He was right. I was totally exhausted and told the tournament directors I could not go on.

That tournamet brought my USCF rating to 2188. Then there was a 4 round tournament in my home town of Decatur.  I won 4-0.  There was a 2nd 4 round tourney and I won 4-0 again.  The first was more than enough to make me USCF master.  I waited 3 months for my rating to be published in the monthly magazine. It never happened.  A few months after that I got hold of the tournament director--he was director for both tournaments. I asked him on the phone--what happened?  He said he had played in both tournaments and did not do well and had decided not to send in the results!  My USCF rating has stayed at 2188 for 40 years!!

I never played another USCF game as my real love was correspondence chess.  After all we tend to do things we are best at and the same in chess. Some players like blitz. Some like USCF. Me it was always postal and then correspondence chess.

I got better and better and won many postal or correspondence championships.  But finally about 1987 I started playing in the Finals of the 7th United States Correspondence Championship.  To get to the finals you had to be first in a 14 player prelim round which consisted of all masters and experts. 

 In the meantime I had written a couple of books. One on the Ponziani and more importantly Center Counter Uprising as I had a whole lot of new theory on 1. e4  d5  2. exd5  Qxd5  3. Nc3  Qa5  [as Black]. I was allowed to play the Center Counter [as Black] 4 times in that championship and won all 4 games. So my finding new theory greatly helped me in that tournament. My final score was 13 wins, 1 draw, and no losses. Cannot do much better than that and I partially retired.

However I kept going by playing exhibition matches vs individuals and more importantly very strong teams.  So I did not lose my edge at around 2550.

   After that and until today my playing ability stayed at close to 2550 until about 2 months ago.  Each year with the wealth of chess information available, I would grow stronger and stronger in my chess knowledge.

  However each year my cogitive abilities would go up and down but in the long run would very slightly decrease. So it was [as it happens] an even balance. My slightly less cogitive abilites vs my chess knowledge.

2 months ago because of health problems my abilities went down from maybe 2500 to 2300.

Why did I do so well in chess?  Well as mentioned earlier I had a very rough childhood and was deeply depressed and really had an inferiority complex [I know this sounds strange!]. Chess [and duplicate bridge] were games but important games and games of skill which I could do very well and no longer would I be so depressed with such an inferiority complex when playing chess....

What helped me at the very highest levels?  It was opening theory, much of which I developed myself.  If you are winning after 10 or so moves or if you have an advantage after 10 or so moves--it is much easier to win...

Thanx, I like reading your stuff on here. I haven't read your books but am curious about your Center Counter one. Where can I get it?

It is Center Counter Uprising.  When it was published, it was mostly new theory.  It is still available on Amazon

While that theory is still intact there are several books which are larger and more up to date on theory.  So I would suggest one of those.