Forums
Most Recent
- Feedback on Wegiel chess sets?
- 4/25/2018 - K.Begley, 6th Prize, Mat Plus 2008
- Chess Hangman
- The Secret of Chess
- Do Drinks help in Chess?
- dealing with pawn-pushers
- First Tournament
- Recently went to a very poorly run tournament
- Is the Linares Tournament ever going to make a comeback?
- Team Bulldog Chess with Witch (aidanB1 and HorribleTomato vs Waredude and HorusTheThird)
Forum Legend
- Following
- New Comments
- Locked Topic
- Pinned Topic
Some corrections first , I am not anti-immigrant but I am anti-illegal immigrant and especially anti-illegal-criminal immigrant , and since this would include any race I dont see the charge of racism as valid .
Personally I began working on openings before I was even 1500 , but not deeply . I would say I started working on openings more seriously after reaching 1800 because at that time I was " thrown to the wolves . " I had to start playing in Open sections of the swiss events I was playing which meant I was playing masters and experts consistently . I was being slaughtered in the openings , often being lost before move 20 because they knew the openings much better than me . One of the biggest upsets I have ever seen was when a friend of mine that was only a B class player beat a 2300 master ( also a friend ) in a very sharp gambit line that the B class player knew much better than the master did . Its a wild gambit line called the icelandic gambit . The master wasnt familiar with it and the B class player was . I myself lost badly to a player 2 classes under me when he played a latvian gambit against me because I was completely unprepared for this opening that he had a lot of experience in and I lost . Chess has 3 phases and to be a strong player one must work on all 3 phases , I dont believe its good to ignore any phase . The middlegame is my favorite phase and I have spent more study time there than on either the openings or endings but I didnt ignore them either .
I agree. Particularly about the criminal illegal immigrant. Can't believe that a Dem mayor by the appropriate name of Libby warned criminal illegals that the Federal Immigration Enforcement officers were going to do a raid.
She should be arrested for breaking the law.
The average devoted adult chess student improves around 100 points OTB per year or less. So no, it is not slow, it is over twice the average. You are supposed to double your skill/strength every 130 pts as per the ELO system so 1000 points is 7.5 of these doubles 2^7.5 I am almost 200x stronger than I was 5 years ago
Hey bud! I'm hesitant to make this post because I do believe you should be proud of making it to 1800. But you've mentioned many times that you did it in under 5 years, while there is nothing wrong with that, it is not fast enough to impress anyone. The problem with this map is that the difference between ratings is not evenly spread, i.e. it is easier to go from 800-900 than it is to go from 1100 to 1200, which in turn is easier than 1500 to 1600. If you get to a higher rating than, yes, 100 points is a good goal, and at some point event that becomes unreasonable (if Magnus Carlsen went up 100 points each year...well, you get the point).
I would expect the average player to go from 800 to at least 1300 in a year, and then make it to 1600ish the next. It might take another 2 years to go to 1800, but that's still at about 4 years.
I personally went from a beginner to 1800 USCF in a little under 2 years but I know many people who were much faster than that.
However, I will agree with you about tactics-- I basically focused 100% on tactics (with some endgames) and next to nothing on openings until 1800. However, I would have had a lot of difficultly getting to 2000 or beyond without doing any opening research.
Keep up the good work, and I do agree that tactics are key.
Do you know approximately how many games you played in going from unrated to 1800 in two years?
He gain all his rating because of tactics, that is why a lot masters and trainers dislike Micheal, he prove you don't need a trainer to get to expert level.
Michael's experience proved that it worked for him. But what works for one player might not work for another.
Clearly, in his attempts to improve, he developed a foundation in openings and positional play, but his tactical vision was still lacking. So of course tactics helped him tremendously, as that was the weakest part of his game.
But what about players who are decent at tactics, but struggle with other areas of the game?
I stagnated at the 1200-1300 level for a long time, even though I did tactics puzzles daily. For years. If I remember correctly, it took me about five years to rise from 1300 to 1450, from just playing, and doing tactics.
The tactical vision wasn't translating to consecutive wins, as I treated every single move as a new tactics puzzle to solve. Tactical puzzles were my only training at chess, so of course that was the only way I knew how to look at a position.
This meant sometimes I'd find a good move. Other times I'd not be able to see any tactics and be left clueless as to how to proceed.
I'd chase tactics, or defend against them, with no concept about pawn structures, piece placement, files, diagonals, or outposts. As a result, I'd find myself attacking or defending the whole game, then being bewildered by the fact that my position ended up being full of weaknesses, with my pieces and pawns all misplaced.
I found myself wondering: how could this happen when I've been chasing after the tactics?
Then I got the Chessmaster PC game and began going through the opening lessons—where you're given certain opening positions and asked to find a good move. It was the first time I was introduced to the concept of opening principles—and boy did it improve my playing tremendously.
I also began reading books on basic chess strategy—and again, more wins came my way.
Once I began reading positional books like Nimzo's My System and Aagaard's Excelling at Chess, my playing really took off.
For me, tactics weren't the problem. The problem was not knowing basic principles, and not understanding the fundamentals of sound positional play.
After making barely any gains for years, I leapt up from 1450 to 1750 in a single year after moving past "just tactics", and adding opening principles, a basic opening repertoire, and positional fundamentals to my study regimen.
Long story short: I don't believe any single training plan is ideal for everyone. Every player has strengths and weaknesses, and identifying those is the best way to figure out what one needs to be working on the most.
Another way to use the tactics trainer that most don't know about. You can set a custom rating range and solve puzzles unrated. You can set the range for puzzles to under 800 and try to solve them as fast as you can, or you can set the range really wide from 400-2400 so you get in a good practice of looking at all of the simple checks, captures, and threats first and gradually looking deeper.
Tactics, tactics tactics!! (they aren't supposed to be easy)
if you are learning impaired.
He gain all his rating because of tactics, that is why a lot masters and trainers dislike Micheal, he prove you don't need a trainer to get to expert level.
Michael's experience proved that it worked for him. But what works for one player might not work for another.
Clearly, in his attempts to improve, he developed a foundation in openings and positional play, but his tactical vision was still lacking. So of course tactics helped him tremendously, as that was the weakest part of his game.
But what about players who are decent at tactics, but struggle with other areas of the game?
I stagnated at the 1200-1300 level for a long time, even though I did tactics puzzles daily. For years. If I remember correctly, it took me about five years to rise from 1300 to 1450, from just playing, and doing tactics.
The tactical vision wasn't translating to consecutive wins, as I treated every single move as a new tactics puzzle to solve. Tactical puzzles were my only training at chess, so of course that was the only way I knew how to look at a position.
This meant sometimes I'd find a good move. Other times I'd not be able to see any tactics and be left clueless as to how to proceed.
I'd chase tactics, or defend against them, with no concept about pawn structures, piece placement, files, diagonals, or outposts. As a result, I'd find myself attacking or defending the whole game, then being bewildered by the fact that my position ended up being full of weaknesses, with my pieces and pawns all misplaced.
I found myself wondering: how could this happen when I've been chasing after the tactics?
Then I got the Chessmaster PC game and began going through the opening lessons—where you're given certain opening positions and asked to find a good move. It was the first time I was introduced to the concept of opening principles—and boy did it improve my playing tremendously.
I also began reading books on basic chess strategy—and again, more wins came my way.
Once I began reading positional books like Nimzo's My System and Aagaard's Excelling at Chess, my playing really took off.
For me, tactics weren't the problem. The problem was not knowing basic principles, and not understanding the fundamentals of sound positional play.
After making barely any gains for years, I leapt up from 1450 to 1750 in a single year after moving past "just tactics", and adding opening principles, a basic opening repertoire, and positional fundamentals to my study regimen.
Long story short: I don't believe any single training plan is ideal for everyone. Every player has strengths and weaknesses, and identifying those is the best way to figure out what one needs to be working on the most.
He gain all his rating because of tactics, that is why a lot masters and trainers dislike Micheal, he prove you don't need a trainer to get to expert level.
Michael's experience proved that it worked for him. But what works for one player might not work for another.
Clearly, in his attempts to improve, he developed a foundation in openings and positional play, but his tactical vision was still lacking. So of course tactics helped him tremendously, as that was the weakest part of his game.
But what about players who are decent at tactics, but struggle with other areas of the game?
I stagnated at the 1200-1300 level for a long time, even though I did tactics puzzles daily. For years. If I remember correctly, it took me about five years to rise from 1300 to 1450, from just playing, and doing tactics.
The tactical vision wasn't translating to consecutive wins, as I treated every single move as a new tactics puzzle to solve. Tactical puzzles were my only training at chess, so of course that was the only way I knew how to look at a position.
This meant sometimes I'd find a good move. Other times I'd not be able to see any tactics and be left clueless as to how to proceed.
I'd chase tactics, or defend against them, with no concept about pawn structures, piece placement, files, diagonals, or outposts. As a result, I'd find myself attacking or defending the whole game, then being bewildered by the fact that my position ended up being full of weaknesses, with my pieces and pawns all misplaced.
I found myself wondering: how could this happen when I've been chasing after the tactics?
Then I got the Chessmaster PC game and began going through the opening lessons—where you're given certain opening positions and asked to find a good move. It was the first time I was introduced to the concept of opening principles—and boy did it improve my playing tremendously.
I also began reading books on basic chess strategy—and again, more wins came my way.
Once I began reading positional books like Nimzo's My System and Aagaard's Excelling at Chess, my playing really took off.
For me, tactics weren't the problem. The problem was not knowing basic principles, and not understanding the fundamentals of sound positional play.
After making barely any gains for years, I leapt up from 1450 to 1750 in a single year after moving past "just tactics", and adding opening principles, a basic opening repertoire, and positional fundamentals to my study regimen.
Long story short: I don't believe any single training plan is ideal for everyone. Every player has strengths and weaknesses, and identifying those is the best way to figure out what one needs to be working on the most.
He gain all his rating because of tactics, that is why a lot masters and trainers dislike Micheal, he prove you don't need a trainer to get to expert level.
Michael's experience proved that it worked for him. But what works for one player might not work for another.
Clearly, in his attempts to improve, he developed a foundation in openings and positional play, but his tactical vision was still lacking. So of course tactics helped him tremendously, as that was the weakest part of his game.
But what about players who are decent at tactics, but struggle with other areas of the game?
I stagnated at the 1200-1300 level for a long time, even though I did tactics puzzles daily. For years. If I remember correctly, it took me about five years to rise from 1300 to 1450, from just playing, and doing tactics.
The tactical vision wasn't translating to consecutive wins, as I treated every single move as a new tactics puzzle to solve. Tactical puzzles were my only training at chess, so of course that was the only way I knew how to look at a position.
This meant sometimes I'd find a good move. Other times I'd not be able to see any tactics and be left clueless as to how to proceed.
I'd chase tactics, or defend against them, with no concept about pawn structures, piece placement, files, diagonals, or outposts. As a result, I'd find myself attacking or defending the whole game, then being bewildered by the fact that my position ended up being full of weaknesses, with my pieces and pawns all misplaced.
I found myself wondering: how could this happen when I've been chasing after the tactics?
Then I got the Chessmaster PC game and began going through the opening lessons—where you're given certain opening positions and asked to find a good move. It was the first time I was introduced to the concept of opening principles—and boy did it improve my playing tremendously.
I also began reading books on basic chess strategy—and again, more wins came my way.
Once I began reading positional books like Nimzo's My System and Aagaard's Excelling at Chess, my playing really took off.
For me, tactics weren't the problem. The problem was not knowing basic principles, and not understanding the fundamentals of sound positional play.
After making barely any gains for years, I leapt up from 1450 to 1750 in a single year after moving past "just tactics", and adding opening principles, a basic opening repertoire, and positional fundamentals to my study regimen.
Long story short: I don't believe any single training plan is ideal for everyone. Every player has strengths and weaknesses, and identifying those is the best way to figure out what one needs to be working on the most.