I was 800 rated blitz 6 months ago
FACT: You can't improve at chess
Sort:
i just play and lose mostly
May 2, 2021
0
#404
I'm 1877 in rapid. Anyone think I can't hit 2000 in a month? Starting today
play4fun64 wrote:
I'm 1877 in rapid. Anyone think I can't hit 2000 in a month? Starting today
Gl man, defo possible, but not easy
May 3, 2021
0
#406
Arkleseisure wrote:
play4fun64 wrote:
I'm 1877 in rapid. Anyone think I can't hit 2000 in a month? Starting today
Gl man, defo possible, but not easy
I'm 1923 now.
May 3, 2021
0
#407
To be honest, when I look at my stats, it pretty much shows that I've been improving at chess a lot at the past month.
JeffGreen333 wrote:
triggerlips wrote:
You can sharpen yourself up with tactics puzzles etc, but OP is basically correct. First few years playing massive improvement, but once you hit your natural level it very difficult to go much further.
Many older players can argue that they are higher rated than they were 20 years ago, but ho much of that is due to rating inflation rather than actual improvement?
No, I am MUCH better than I was 20 years ago or even 10 years ago. Sometimes, you have the talent to be a 2000 level player, but there are a few holes in your knowledge that cause you to lose games. That was the case with me. After I studied the "right things", everything started to click and I filled in those holes and vaulted from 1600 to around 1900, over the past 5-10 years (in my late 40's/early 50's no less). It takes dedication, lots of study and some inborn talent. Not everyone can continue to improve at my age though. I have managed to keep my mind sharp by playing lots of strategy games, taking quizzes, doing puzzles, etc. I may be a rare exception to the age rule (most people peak mentally at around age 40). I will admit that I am not a fast player. I excel at longer games, where I can think deeply. My blitz rating is only around 1450, but my daily rating is 1820 and rising.
Jeff Green, you are the f***ing man bro.
May 9, 2021
0
#409
MitchKupietz wrote:
JeffGreen333 wrote:
triggerlips wrote:
You can sharpen yourself up with tactics puzzles etc, but OP is basically correct. First few years playing massive improvement, but once you hit your natural level it very difficult to go much further.
Many older players can argue that they are higher rated than they were 20 years ago, but ho much of that is due to rating inflation rather than actual improvement?
No, I am MUCH better than I was 20 years ago or even 10 years ago. Sometimes, you have the talent to be a 2000 level player, but there are a few holes in your knowledge that cause you to lose games. That was the case with me. After I studied the "right things", everything started to click and I filled in those holes and vaulted from 1600 to around 1900, over the past 5-10 years (in my late 40's/early 50's no less). It takes dedication, lots of study and some inborn talent. Not everyone can continue to improve at my age though. I have managed to keep my mind sharp by playing lots of strategy games, taking quizzes, doing puzzles, etc. I may be a rare exception to the age rule (most people peak mentally at around age 40). I will admit that I am not a fast player. I excel at longer games, where I can think deeply. My blitz rating is only around 1450, but my daily rating is 1820 and rising.
Jeff Green, you are the f***ing man bro.
That was unnecessarily unnecessary to say. And not really a good thing to say either.
May 9, 2021
0
#410
I've consistently improved improved over time, albeit very slowly. Over life obligations always get in the way of quick improvement.
psylowade wrote:
This is going to be a very controversial post - but I strongly believe that once someone has a basic understanding of the game (knowing all the opening variations, basic strategies etc..) it's almost impossible to improve based on practice. I think we all have a natural ability that will dictate our skill level. It's why we see little kids rated as grandmasters but players who have put 20+ years in still struggle at 1500
This is why you see that majority of players, who have played for over 5 years ALWAYS hover around the same rating. You would think after 5 years of consistent practice the rating would gradually increase?
Every single graph I've looked at at long term players is within 200 rating points. I.e. if someone is rated 1900 they will have hovered between 1800-2000 for their entire careers. It makes me believe chess is based on genetic intelligence you're born with and nothing more. Yes you can sharpen your skill but you're not going to go from struggling at 1000 to 2500 in 10 years.
I know the majority of you are thinking "what an idiot of course you can improve" - Show me a graph of a player who has consistently improved over time. It doesn't exist. It's usually rapid increase or decrease at the beginning then just hovering around a rating forever. Give me a player profile graph and show me slow, long term improvement
Absolutely true, but people don't want to understand it.
When I started playing chess, my rating was already 1700. And let's have a look at some players, who learn this game their whole life, and their rating is still 1200 or something like that.
May 9, 2021
0
#412
Tails204 wrote:
psylowade wrote:
This is going to be a very controversial post - but I strongly believe that once someone has a basic understanding of the game (knowing all the opening variations, basic strategies etc..) it's almost impossible to improve based on practice. I think we all have a natural ability that will dictate our skill level. It's why we see little kids rated as grandmasters but players who have put 20+ years in still struggle at 1500
This is why you see that majority of players, who have played for over 5 years ALWAYS hover around the same rating. You would think after 5 years of consistent practice the rating would gradually increase?
Every single graph I've looked at at long term players is within 200 rating points. I.e. if someone is rated 1900 they will have hovered between 1800-2000 for their entire careers. It makes me believe chess is based on genetic intelligence you're born with and nothing more. Yes you can sharpen your skill but you're not going to go from struggling at 1000 to 2500 in 10 years.
I know the majority of you are thinking "what an idiot of course you can improve" - Show me a graph of a player who has consistently improved over time. It doesn't exist. It's usually rapid increase or decrease at the beginning then just hovering around a rating forever. Give me a player profile graph and show me slow, long term improvement
Absolutely true, but people don't want to understand it.
When I started playing chess, my rating was already 1700. And let's have a look at some players, who learn this game their whole life, and their rating is still 1200 or something like that.
How were you 1700 when you started playing chess?
Do you mean started going on chess.com?
May 9, 2021
0
#413
For older players, many have declined from their peak. I think it's still possible to play near their peak if they study (review) regularly. And put more focus to chess. What I mean is when they play, avoid distraction.
May 9, 2021
0
#414
LazyDog24 wrote:
JackRoach wrote:
Tails204 wrote:
psylowade wrote:
This is going to be a very controversial post - but I strongly believe that once someone has a basic understanding of the game (knowing all the opening variations, basic strategies etc..) it's almost impossible to improve based on practice. I think we all have a natural ability that will dictate our skill level. It's why we see little kids rated as grandmasters but players who have put 20+ years in still struggle at 1500
This is why you see that majority of players, who have played for over 5 years ALWAYS hover around the same rating. You would think after 5 years of consistent practice the rating would gradually increase?
Every single graph I've looked at at long term players is within 200 rating points. I.e. if someone is rated 1900 they will have hovered between 1800-2000 for their entire careers. It makes me believe chess is based on genetic intelligence you're born with and nothing more. Yes you can sharpen your skill but you're not going to go from struggling at 1000 to 2500 in 10 years.
I know the majority of you are thinking "what an idiot of course you can improve" - Show me a graph of a player who has consistently improved over time. It doesn't exist. It's usually rapid increase or decrease at the beginning then just hovering around a rating forever. Give me a player profile graph and show me slow, long term improvement
Absolutely true, but people don't want to understand it.
When I started playing chess, my rating was already 1700. And let's have a look at some players, who learn this game their whole life, and their rating is still 1200 or something like that.
How were you 1700 when you started playing chess?
Do you mean started going on chess.com?
Let's make this straight. Chess isn't based on intelligence, it is about the effort you put in. Tell me how IQ has anything to do with learning chess stuff! In school if 2 kids are taught a history lesson, kid A is a genius, kid B is average. Their IQ has nothing to do with their knowledge of that lesson, it is the effort of listening to the teacher. It is the same with chess, it is about the effort you put into training and learning chess things. Your first point was that some people become high rated and a young age while some are stuck. That is because those young people got exposed to a ton of chess understanding at a very young age. You also used the point others are stuck. Well ask those people who are stuck this: Do you have a chess coach? Do you expose your self to a lot of chess understanding? Do you train? Do you review your games? Chances are most will say no to most of those questions. Also you said you started at a high rating, that is clearly impossible. Lets turn the tables around and give me one graph when someone started at a high rating. Also your final point is you need a graph. While here's one but if you look enough there will probably be 30. What I am trying to say is that this is an elitist and dumb claim. This graph shows a steady walk from 1250 to 2000 over 5 years
Were you directing that at me?
May 9, 2021
0
#415
LazyDog24 wrote:
No, at Tails204
Well my quote was most recent.
So you had me confused lol
May 9, 2021
0
#416
Original post makes no sense, obviously wrong, almost everybody improves!
I didn't say that chess is related to IQ.
It's based only on innate abilities, for memorizing positions, and other things like that.
Of course, if you want, you can get better in any way, although innate abilities play a huge role
JackRoach wrote:
You are correct, improving is impossible.
But deproving, that's easy.
huh improving is impossible if that werent true then you wouldnt be able to learn an opening
This is going to be a very controversial post - but I strongly believe that once someone has a basic understanding of the game (knowing all the opening variations, basic strategies etc..) it's almost impossible to improve based on practice. I think we all have a natural ability that will dictate our skill level. It's why we see little kids rated as grandmasters but players who have put 20+ years in still struggle at 1500
This is why you see that majority of players, who have played for over 5 years ALWAYS hover around the same rating. You would think after 5 years of consistent practice the rating would gradually increase?
Every single graph I've looked at at long term players is within 200 rating points. I.e. if someone is rated 1900 they will have hovered between 1800-2000 for their entire careers. It makes me believe chess is based on genetic intelligence you're born with and nothing more. Yes you can sharpen your skill but you're not going to go from struggling at 1000 to 2500 in 10 years.
I know the majority of you are thinking "what an idiot of course you can improve" - Show me a graph of a player who has consistently improved over time. It doesn't exist. It's usually rapid increase or decrease at the beginning then just hovering around a rating forever. Give me a player profile graph and show me slow, long term improvement
Pretty sure that I addressed this in this thread a couple of years ago, but I'll mention again.
I learned the moves in 1968 and knew nothing until 1975 when I learned some basics about piece coordination and king safety (mostly exposing the unsafe position of my opponent's king). I improved enough over the next few years to say that I had a basic understanding of chess. About fifteen years later, I started playing rated tournament chess and quickly proved myself a reasonably decent club player (mid-C class).
About ten years later, I began to improve, gaining ~400 Elo over six years to reach a peak just below 2000 USCF. Improvement stalled because I was in the top three in my city for about two years and had to win every single game to avoid a loss of rating points. Meanwhile, young players I had trained started beating me.
Now, after another ten years, my knowledge and skills continue to grow, but my performance falls a little short of my peak in the early 2010s. Old men usually decline in performance, so this is no surprise.