Do i guys think i will be able hit 2000 ratings barrier at least in two years :( - Chess Forums - Page 6

28 days ago

0

#101

I’m not doing the wrong thing at all, I’ve been rapidly improving, but it simply just isn’t the thing that you can do it in 200 hours. I haven’t seen anyone actually achieve that… if it really was only 200 hours than someone could easily get 2000 in under a month. Are they already at 1800 rating ? Maybe 1900?

28 days ago

0

#102

tygxc kirjoitti:

#91
"I know people who get plenty of practice but never seem to improve. I mean over decades. There has to be something more to getting better than just making pieces move around."
++ Lasker addressed that question too:
"Having spent 200 hours on the above, the young player, even if he possesses no special talent for chess, is likely to be among those two or three thousand chessplayers [who play on a par with a master]. There are, however, a quarter of a million chessplayers who annually spend no fewer than 200 hours on chess without making any progress. Without going into any further calculations, I can assert with a high degree of certainty that nowadays we achieve only a fraction of what we are capable of achieving." - Lasker

Thus 200 hours of doing the right thing allows to get among the 3000 players best players,
but 250,000 players spend >200 hours doing the wrong thing and make no progress.

You have not made any progress in the last year. What foolishness did you spend those 200+ hours on?

Numbers do not lie.

28 days ago

0

#103

tygxc kirjoitti:

#91
"I know people who get plenty of practice but never seem to improve. I mean over decades. There has to be something more to getting better than just making pieces move around."
++ Lasker addressed that question too:
"Having spent 200 hours on the above, the young player, even if he possesses no special talent for chess, is likely to be among those two or three thousand chessplayers [who play on a par with a master]. There are, however, a quarter of a million chessplayers who annually spend no fewer than 200 hours on chess without making any progress. Without going into any further calculations, I can assert with a high degree of certainty that nowadays we achieve only a fraction of what we are capable of achieving." - Lasker

Thus 200 hours of doing the right thing allows to get among the 3000 players best players,
but 250,000 players spend >200 hours doing the wrong thing and make no progress.

Based on your stats (you are at this very moment sub-2000 rapid) and your own comments you must be doing something terribly wrong. You have spent way more than 200 hours, yet you are not even close to top 3000 players in the world. You are sub 2000.

28 days ago

0

#104

And top 3000 is so much harder to get as there are thousands of master XD

28 days ago

0

#105

In fact I should add on to that, there are over 19,000 titled players as of 2019, and probably a lot more now

28 days ago

0

#106

As much as I dislike tygxc’s opinions, I have to defend him here. He’s talking about progressing from U1000 to 1500. The better you get, the harder it is to get better.

28 days ago

0

#107

Im pretty sure he was talking about getting to 2000 no?

28 days ago

0

#108

chaotikitat wrote:

Im pretty sure he was talking about getting to 2000 no?

Not really, the OP gave up and closed his account. Maybe he'll dedicate his life to something meaningful instead.

28 days ago

0

#109

#104
Top 3000 was in Lasker's time. Now there are more players, so I convert it to 2000 rating. That is also the meaning of his 'on par with a master': such that a (grand)master cannot give odds.
Yes, I do certain things wrong and I know.
My aim is not to progress. My aim is just to have fun. I made it well beyond 2000.
I play too fast a time control: 10|0 is bad, 15|10 is better, but hard to get paired at my level.
I also do not analyse all my losses as I try to get from elite into champion league.

28 days ago

0

#110

Lasker was playing from the late 1800’s to early mid 1900’s , maybe 200 hours then would give a greater affect because people didn’t study chess as much then? And there definitely were less players

and grand masters could very easily give odds to a 2000 player and still do well

28 days ago

0

#111

tygxc wrote:

I made it well beyond 2000.

This is probably true.

If I become an old man with dementia, my rating will almost certainly be lower than tygxc's is now.

So he was probably a fairly strong player in his youth... and I'm not even joking, this is my actual reasoning

28 days ago

0

#112

#111
Lasker answered it himself:
"Of my fifty-seven years I have applied at least thirty to forgetting most of what I have learned or read. Since then, I have acquired a certain ease and cheer which I should never again like to be without. (...) I have stored little in my memory, but I can apply that little, and it is of use in many and varied emergencies. I keep it in order, but resist every attempt to increase its dead weight." - Lasker
So there is only little to be known and that little can be studied in 200 hours as he said.
Like he said elsewhere: "Variations are transient, method is eternal."
Less is more.