i like taking things "slow"
Fast or slow? Which is better?
Sort:
Feb 22, 2017
0
#3
You're essentially asking whether experience as a player U1500 is worth more than experience as a player rated over 1500? Strange question. The lower the rating, the more mistakes are made. I'm not sure why you think that kind of experience would be particularly beneficial.
Feb 22, 2017
0
#4
Sounds like OP is using this question as an indirect way of boasting. Which maybe I've been guilty of myself.
Personally I like it real slow but I know a lot of people like it real fast.
Feb 22, 2017
0
#6
Oh, the 1550 in 7 months thing.
The problem with chess players is, you rarely if ever get an accurate account of such things. I always ignore that stuff. If they want to give a link to their USCF profile that's fine, I'll check out the ratings graph there.
I prefer fast so I can roll over and go to sleep.
urk wrote:
Sounds like OP is using this question as an indirect way of boasting. Which maybe I've been guilty of myself.
Boasting to random readers on this site helps me none. The point of this post is to figure out how to imrove in the future.
Feb 28, 2017
0
#9
Playing better players more gives the best experience. Reviewing games after play is important. I am just learning and have only played on the site for a month. I find at 800-1200 people are all over the place some play much better and some much worse than what you should expect from there rating. At 1550 I hope it has more meaning. In rapid I messed up my opening a lot early in daily I just won my first two games and am 200 points higher in daily than rapid.
So don't worry about rank you can create a custom challenge to challenge any level. Someone will pick you up. I am 1000 at daily 960 chess and I am playing a 1800 right now. It is a great learning experience.
It is all open and flexible.
I am making this forum to understand somethin about my own chess career...
I unlike most people, started chess, and after about 7 months, held a pretty solid rating of 1550. Also, i had no coach to help me get better. I don't really know what how it happened.
Anyways, I feel from there I have still proggressed since then (it's been about 1.5 years) I should have a rating of 1750 as some of my friends say... (haven't played enough tournaments tho)
But now to my bigger point: Most folk have to take a while to get to 1500 (years for some)
And I'm wondering, is it better that I jumped to 1600, or would it have been better to be stuck in the lower sections for years, and have tons of experience behind myself?
I have wondered this for a while, it would be great to get some help on this!