Getting closer to 2000!!

3 minutes and 5 minutes blitz chess is helpful

you play a lot of games. and also in 3 or 5 minutes you know what you did wrong instead of wasting 30 minutes playing longer game.

I don't have a coach and never have had a coach and I barely have worked with other people on my studies, and easily glided into expert, but I'm not saying it's easy for everyone. It's not easy. I spent a ton of time on it and somehow things clicked. Although it'll probably be tons of times harder to gain those 186 more points I need.

I play blitz for about a year and I can't break 1500. Congrats, you got the potencial!

Zigwurst, I doubt you'll reach IM without coaching, so I suggest getting a coach now. It can't really be bad for you, unless the coach is extremely expensive.

Just to put in a perspective from the 'solving math problems' side, as discussed on the first page:

Real math problems are not trivialized in seconds. Let's take for example, a relatively easy problem from the IMO: IMO 2009 #2

Let  be a triangle with circumcentre . The points  and  are interior points of the sides  and  respectively. Let  and  be the midpoints of the segments  and , respectively, and let  be the circle passing through  and . Suppose that the line  is tangent to the circle . Prove that .

This was given out on IMO 2009. The official solution, and my solution, took maybe 5 minutes to write up, and it took barely 3 lines of space. (In case you don't know how to solve this, take midlines, use Angle by Tangent, and then use Power of a Point to prove that P and Q are equidistant from the center).

Despite this problem being seemingly easy, it would take an actual contestant much longer to solve. Just because it is possible for you to solve this in 3-4 minutes doesn't mean that someone who can do that is better than someone who takes about an hour and a half to solve it (out of 9/2 hours total on each day of the IMO). It is highly incorrect to say that math genii can solve such problems very quickly; while the problems themselves seem quite easy to solve after you 'see' the answer, it takes an enormous amount of thought beforehand.

To compare this to chess, it's kind of like solving tactics in professional or semi-professional chess. There will be tactical minefields in which some players can take up to 1 hr thinking about their move. Then, they will have 'solved the problem [position]', per se, which will let them win.

Bullet chess is somewhat akin to competitions like Mathcounts, the AMC 10/12 problem series, etc. These problems take much less thought, and there are far more of them. To put it simply, you have much less time on those tactical decisions you could spend an hour on.

I have no way to get money for a coach, which is the problem itself...

zigwurst, some more really nice trends.  is it to ask aproximately how old you are?  sometimes I think such nice and creeping upward growth-- without a lot of study and anguish is a sign of a teenager maturing into an adult.  what do you think; is age a part of this?  

I don't mean to pry, though.  and I don't want to minimize what you've accomplished.

I see you are an experienced OTB competitor, in my surveys- many non-improving adults Aren't.  so I think playing Long OTB chess is another factor in improving-- in all time controls.

My name is X_PLAYER_J_X

I have talked on this forum quite a bit. Which means you are perfectly capable of getting my named correctly by either quote my name or copying my name. However, you decided to be insulting and call me xplayerxxwhatever.

Which means I am going to call you WhateverAssTack or MassAtwhatever.

I never said people who play OTB tournaments are a God.

I said it is different.

Furthermore, I know it is different not because I have personal experince in OTB tournament. It is because I have looked up the time controls. Furthermore, I have talked with other people who do play OTB.

The most common OTB time control is 90 minutes for the first 40 moves followed by 30 minutes for the rest of the game with an addition of 30 seconds per move starting from move one.

If you think OTB is the same as online you are a naive fool.

A 10 min blitz game is nothing like a game with the above time controls.

It is not the same because you can not meet the same condition's as OTB.

Furthermore, I do not even believe chess.com allows you to do such a time control.

Lastly, To address the below sentence.

I'm pretty sure you're trying to start an argument.

^^^^No it is not an agrument. For the conversation to be an agruement. I would of had to agrue a point or state some opinion.

Telling people OTB is different than online is not an opinion it is a fact. You are trying to pretend it is not one which is why you end up looking like a fool.

Getting from 2150 to 2200 in OTB is not harder than getting from 1000-2000 online, if you play standard (30 min) time control. It might be the equivalent of getting from 1000-1450ish 

I think people need to realize that even if you do make it to 2350... What then?

2350 is nowhere near rated high enough to be making a living playing chess. Ok youre good at chess which requires a lot of time and effort no matter how good you claim to be.

So what? ok youre 2350....

Is your shiny FIDE title going to feed your family?

Even if you make it to GM... are you top 10 in the world? are you giving lessons, writing books? No?

Youre just playing? Well.. good luck paying the bills with "Sorry i cant pay the electric bill this month because i didnt win enough money at hte chess tournament."

Unless you are churning out a lot of chess books, or getting appearence fees to play in supertournaments, then chess is the worst thing to put effort into by going professional.

John Bartholomew for example. He is a titled player but uses his oration skills along with youtube channel to build his chess teaching business. He charges $80/hour, and tbh only needs to work 5 hours a day to be making $400/day.

any tips man?

yes.

this is a board game, and people love taking it much more seriously than it really is.

I see that you (aka xplayerxxwhatever) have not read my full statement. I even agreed with you that OTB games and online games are different, yet you try to lecture me about OTB tournaments, even though I have been to many and you have been to none. I have played many 1 hour and 30 minute games before and I play them much better than online 10 minute games, but they can easily tire you out. Don't even try to switch to your weak point in an argument after you've been beat in all other ones. Also, I don't understand why you get so offended when I don't call you by your full demented username. If you continue to argue about OTB, I could easily figure out what your IQ is. I have much more knowledge about OTB tournaments than you do. I have been playing in them for 3 1/2 years, while you have been playing on a computer, maybe you had a little look on Wikipedia for OTB tournaments and had a quick conversation with some u/1600 players for OTB time controls.

Chill out, I was joking.

Hello!

In my experience its at some point really hard to improve even more if you have already trained allot and played thousands of chessgames. 

I climbed from 1100 Elo to 1800 Elo in tournament chess and now I sometimes win against 2000 rated players but I am not strong enough (in average) to climb to that level (at least at the moment).

But its still nice to be at 1800 now, I am one of the better players in my chess club and with my playing skills I even manage to win a price in some little local tournaments from time to time.

We cant become better all the time, but at least we can try to come closer and closer to our personal limit - even this is impossible due to our limited life-time I guess. 

Pumo

i can coach you

my rate is $45 / hr

Congrats on improving! Chess does require a lot of dedication and for you to beat a NM is really an outstanding achievement.

:)

@thegreat_patzer I'm in high school, so...

ill do 15 an hour

I have read your full statement.

The above was your original full statement.

The text in green:

I did not comment toward the green area's because you agreed with me. I have no reason to comment toward them.

The text in red:

The area's in red are the area's I was commenting toward. In my last post.

Firstly, I did not like you misusing my name because I thought you was trying to be insulting.

Secondly, I explained the difference between OTB time controls and online time controls because you said OTB ratings aren't a big deal at all. However, it can be a big deal if a person who has never had experince in that longer time controls plays an OTB tournement for the first time.

The text in black:

I did not comment toward the black area's in your above post because those text were subjective. You was just offering your own personal opinion on them.

Honestly there is no reason for me to comment to them because people could agrue both sides of the opinons you stated.

For example:

A person could agrue getting a coach could help you learn positional idea's.

However, another person could agrue if you get a coach and the coach is bad you might not learn positional idea's and than have spent your hard earned money for nothing.

Its really subjective and people could agrue points on either sides of the fence forever. Which is why I did not say anything towards it.

The text in red:

You didn't beat me in any other points. You made subjective opinions which you personally believe. I didn't feel the need to object to them. You are entitled to believe what you want to believe.

The text in green:

Sounds as if you are insulting me by calling me that name.

The text in blue:

I do not need to agrue about OTB. I stated my case already. You are simply wrong for saying OTB ratings aren't a big deal at all.

The text in orange:

I did look it up on Wikipedia and I tryed looking it up on FIDE while I was searching for FIDE rules.

The conversations I had were with about 5 different OTB players. They all are on my friends list. Ranging from 1800 floor to 2000 floor.

I do think I have talked with a person with a 1600 floor as well. So I guess 1600-2000 would be the correct answer.