FACT: You can't improve at chess

I started as a noob who new where to put the pieces and lost every game, and now I am beating players of such higher levels than me.

Oct 9, 2021 
#489
Like I said…. given 4player is a much broader board and vastness of area, along with much more going on considering two other players than standard, your chances highly increase of gained knowledge to your skills, having so much quicker improvement.

#490
960 helps too because it’s not the same routine standard setup.

wait are there actually people who are struggling to reach 500? i should consider myself lucky to be able to improve so much. i also dont beg streamers (chess streamers obviously) on information on how to improve. if im not doing well then my missions will be not to lose a lot of rating, and also to beat my puzzle rush pb.

I’m in my early 60s. Can I improve? Maybe.

I think Loser’s chess is useful.

Note: Loser’s differs from suicide. In loser’s chess, check is still check and the king cannot be captured. I’ve lost many games because my opponent forced me to checkmate their king.

Oh god I am sorry, but you are just simply wrong. The reason why some are stuck in not getting further with their rating is that they started too late and/or have the wrong methods. It is definitely not genetics and practics improves play a lot. I simply couldn't disagree with all of this more. It is even scientifically proven that you improve in any area you put work into and that it has greater effects on your outcome than your natural talent.

Looking at graphs is absolutely wrong too for two reasons: First is that nobody takes online chess really serious and is here for entertainment. Second is that you can improve a lot in theory without it yet showing in practice - you do not take the whole situations, willingness and concentration of people into account at all. We don't need to show you gradually linear improvement as this is not the way improvement works and also more than often enough it doesn't show in numbers - still I can assure you that a 1300 from India with 10.000 games will completely destroy you, while a 1300 with 100 games will be easy to beat.

960s are fun… They have lmao 960 different backrow setups, so it’s always a different game and that alone is fun! I myself do not find reading where to move, tactics etc., that to be chess, because it’s me playing my opponent, and enjoying the effort to overcome and win, my own work and not from a book’s show of positioning etc., lmao I don’t even know any of the names, gambits lol whathaveyou, that’s not chess to me. The four player is also extremely fun, even more than, however they radar in on newbies and you starting out could be removed with five plays, so is better first view either from spectating a game in the arena or YouTube about and watch there. But, both dramatically can increase your standard skills, mainly the four player FFA. 

Oh yes you can improve at chess, I have played for over 50 years and I learned more in the last ten. Playing here, Lichess, and Chess Tempo. And most of that learning practicing the puzzles. Yes, there is probably a Peter Principle for all of us, but I am not there yet.

I personally have improved in the last two months but it wasn't very quick i had to play  thousands games to see any really change or improvement, I only use two openings and have only used those two openings. I play the same first three moves almost every game for the last couple thousand games but have gradually gained elo based on pure chess development and an increase in understanding. There is a cieling for everyone in everything, that being finite always is defined by limits that are defined. The climb; the aspiration to learn and/or grow is what makes learning/playing chess, lifting weights, studying a field, painting, or anything else worthwhile in the first place. I think your issue with being unable to improve/enjoy has nothing to do with the game itself and everything to do with how you approach chess and your appreciation of the game.

…yeah I don’t even understand how bullet’s considered chess.. It’s sure not taking the proper time to view whats before you on the board, but sure is let’s bust out faster than the opponent ridiculousness, and can also be viewed a sense of disrespect to what’s the purpose of the game, such focus.

In bullet, you do have to calculate, but less is needed, even though some is needed. Its kind of like you are always in time scramble while playing bullet. Now to the original post: You can most definitely improve in chess, look at my rating curve

Chess is a thinking game. That means no haste with what’s placed, no? It’s absolutely defeating the individual, for one, they’re not an AI, nor should the game be hampered because some gets a rush to attempt to blast out the fastest move.

It also is so ego centered, and points enough build that ridiculousness which is very sad, because I truly find that if the points were gone and people just enjoy the game their losses would clearly not have the effect on them as to when they’re losing their claimed precious points, which is terribly sad and losing site of the wonderful fun chess can be, even losses viewed some as a win, simply by the whatever had been gained of what not to do the next time, gained experience, removing their stress and keeping the game totally the fun it belongs, instead of the depression that I’ve seen many have experienced due the damn point system!

It would also dramatically affect their skills at it and progress more, because their depression, whatsoever they had to begin with due the silly points or lack of, and happily improve and watch their game get better! I certainly by playing the 4 player have increased mine, and lol yeah it’s based most points wins, that’s most taken pieces, as well most mates out of the three opponents you’re playing in one game. Extremely fun and most definitely increases your standard skills!

i wrote a book called pandemic shark which is all about adults and what they can do to improve- should be out fairly soon! 

I went up 600 rating points in Half a year in rapid.

Nice

btw the comments about not needing to have a high i.q. to be a grandmaster are absolutely correct. i am living proof of this

for my own pennies worth i agree with a lot of the comments here. i do think that however hard you work that aptitude plays a large part in improvement but it's also single-minded focus on the game. probably when i was younger there were people my age group who were ahead of me but i improved past them due to a single-minded focus on chess.

in my experience most if not all players who achieve grandmaster have at some point in their lives been obsessed with the game, even if in most cases that obsession seriously drops off once you have achieved your goals/realized there is more to life than moving pieces around the board.

i certainly don't do five to six hours study on chess now and probably never did, although i did do a lot more when i was younger. again, in my experience most gms don't really work that hard. it's probably only the very top players who maintain that single-minded obsession with the game, and even many of them become rather lazy over time. 

so although i recognise that working hard plays a large part, i do think talent plays some kind of role, and i've always been rather sceptical of these 10,000 hours claims, that seems more miserable than anything else, like a kind of chess version of the sisyphus rock.