do people below 2000 play chess seriously???

ive been playing chess and moving up the ranks and ive seen alot of people at all levels

at all levels they play premature attacks that dont usually work, tons of 1 movers that dont help their position, weakening moves or overextending, and obviously bad opening variations

but them you get people id say over 1950, that actually look like their playing chess and not playing for tricks and premature moves, their moves are reasonable and make sense.

but every once and while you get a person that seems to not be playing for tricks and traps and premature 1 movers and ultra materialistic

does anybody else see this or is it just me?????

i will give an example

why?

It is just you, or you are looking at this from the wrong angle. About 99% of all chess players are below 2000 rating and if it isn't obvious enough: yes, people below 2000 rating can play chess seriously.

As for playing for tricks etc. all levels do this to some extent occasionally. Clearly, chess becomes more objective and more solid play at the higher levels (generally speaking), but GM Hikaru Nakamura has played the Wayward Queen attack in classical time control before; GM Magnus Carlsen played a "Double Bongcloud" in a high-level game (Qualifier event which he already qualified for to be fair); GM Mamedyarov played the g4 Nimzo-Indian, Devin Gambit in a high-level game...need I go on?

As you get better, the people who used to be above you look worse and worse.

I've seen 2300-2400 play for garbage tricks in blitz... which is fine, because it's blitz...

I guess I should say it like this... higher ratings play garbage to gain time on the clock... lower rated players play garbage and hope their opponent misses the threat.

so my oppoment hopes im stupid and falls for a trap?

but im also talking about how they typically dont how to play openings that they havent looked into

so in conclusion more people may not be very serious about chess and play dubious variations or play hope chess regardless

I don’t play chess seriously

you can even tie this idea to the london, where white just plays a passive, boring, first 10 moves and does not do anything much. those people who still do it above beginner level i believe are not looking for improvement, but are searching a easy solution that avoids any complications agianst them and simply to make black mad that he has to sit for 70 moves to play the london

if thats the case. i wonder why an 1800 who plays like a 2000 is just there

People dont take me seriously because i am too hot

Like others, I disagree with the premise of this post, and would like to pose an alternate explanation. I think that as skill level increases, people's sense of knowing what to look for increases as well. People make honest mistakes, they are not necessarily purposely fooling around or hoping for their opponent to blunder. (Though the latter does happen too, and I think that's a relatively common bad habit that people learn to stamp out over time.)

For me personally: I try to play chess seriously. But I play moves that may weaken my position because I have poor positional sense, and don't always know when I've done so. I never studied openings until recently I started to study many different topics, as I felt I had plateaued at my 1600ish level, so up till (and including) now I play bad opening variations frequently. Premature or inaccurate attacking, for me and probably for many others, may be a result of miscalculations or playing based on intuition in a way that is not entirely accurate.

I also think that the degree of "wow this stuff just doesn't make sense" is super relative. A titled player might think that a 2000 is just doing ridiculous stuff. I saw a 2100 who crushed a 2000 and annotated the game, and in the annotations it was clear that this 2100 was just seeing this 2000 as making mistake after mistake. But to me, the 2000 was playing great.....

Finally, I think it is possible to have way more empathy for lower rated players and to see what they're doing right instead of just what they are doing wrong. I have an intermediate-level friend on here that I met in the forums and I have seen them give FABULOUS advice to three-digit rated players that meets them where they're at and doesn't just entirely dismiss their thought process because a lot of pieces are being hung. Similarly, I've seen how some of the streamers make comments on the games of much lower rated players and are able to empathize with the thought process of players rated between 1000 and 2000 even though the games are full of mistakes.

At the end of the day, chess is a game and can be played for fun. And ICBM or Stafford are both much more fun than a closed Italian game or the seventeenth London of the day.

I'd say that this extends to all levels. Even Hikaru Nakamura frequently plays garbage tricks.

Why take a board game seriously? Because you have nobody in your life and you need a board game to give you self worth?

Waste time means you have nothing better to do. Something meaningful would be a better use of time.

And yet chess gives someone a dopamine hit. That’s why we would spend are time on chess and not something meaningful in are spare time

Yeah and, I guess there are two different ideas... as you get better you start to think others are objectively worse, but also everyone plays at least a little trash in online speed games.

Whether or not he really meant it, Carlsen said he used to think Kramnik was a really incredible player, but then when he got better he realized Kramnik wasn't so good lol.

I think it also has to do with ego. Can't be important in anything, but get validation by rating.

It's fun to work hard and see yourself improve. That's not just for chess but anything.