It is sometimes really strange. 1 600 and 1 700 launch some attack and I just die, and these realistically stronger people just pace themselves to a draw.
Hah, that sounds like me. I "pace myself" right into a draw sometimes, and I generally don't play very aggressively.
It is sometimes really strange. 1 600 and 1 700 launch some attack and I just die, and these realistically stronger people just pace themselves to a draw.
Hah, that sounds like me. I "pace myself" right into a draw sometimes, and I generally don't play very aggressively.
don't you play that g4 thing against the alekhine
I was pretty negative about 95% of my games.
Pretty relatable... last tournament I broke 2000 and I was elated, until I reviewed my games.
Game 1: Against a 1685, I felt like I couldn't get an advantage against his stupid d6 c6 Bg4 e6 Be7 opening, lost an exchange.... then won anyways in the endgame because of my two connected passed pawns.
Game 2: Against a 2387 IM, I played a terrible opening, got a better position after trading queens anyways, then blew it because I didn't think for a single move. Then he proceeded to grind me down in an opposite colored bishop endgame (there were rooks and a pair of knights still on the board)
Game 3: I miss a chance to win a piece in the opening, drop a pawn, create an unsound attack, then my opponent self pins himself and drops a piece and resigns on move 20.
Game 4: I move my bishop three times in the opening followed by Qc1, Defend for forty moves, then he messes up on a single move and my opponent loses.
Game 5: We played 7 moves, traded two sets of minor pieces, and agreed to a draw.
Already 2 out of my 5 games aren't really worth analyzing. I sit there, and I go like, is this it? That's all I played? And it is.
well a better player naturally is more harsh on what is a good game and that usually is a level above you're current one
It is sometimes really strange. 1 600 and 1 700 launch some attack and I just die, and these realistically stronger people just pace themselves to a draw.
Hah, that sounds like me. I "pace myself" right into a draw sometimes, and I generally don't play very aggressively.
don't you play that g4 thing against the alekhine
Yeah, I'm more balanced now, I can attack and hurt my own pawn structure if I think there's a good reason.
I was pretty negative about 95% of my games.
Pretty relatable... last tournament I broke 2000 and I was elated, until I reviewed my games.
Game 1: Against a 1685, I felt like I couldn't get an advantage against his stupid d6 c6 Bg4 e6 Be7 opening, lost an exchange.... then won anyways in the endgame because of my two connected passed pawns.
Game 2: Against a 2387 IM, I played a terrible opening, got a better position after trading queens anyways, then blew it because I didn't think for a single move. Then he proceeded to grind me down in an opposite colored bishop endgame (there were rooks and a pair of knights still on the board)
Game 3: I miss a chance to win a piece in the opening, drop a pawn, create an unsound attack, then my opponent self pins himself and drops a piece and resigns on move 20.
Game 4: I move my bishop three times in the opening followed by Qc1, Defend for forty moves, then he messes up on a single move and my opponent loses.
Game 5: We played 7 moves, traded two sets of minor pieces, and agreed to a draw.
Already 2 out of my 5 games aren't really worth analyzing. I sit there, and I go like, is this it? That's all I played? And it is.
Haha yeah, it's like, "well, I played like an idiot then got lucky on move #__ and won the game, hmm."
#40
I translated to contemporary lingo:: 'on par with a master' = 2000. The original quote was:
"Having spent 200 hours on the above, the young player, even if he possesses no special talent for chess, is likely to be among those two or three thousand chessplayers [who play on a par with a master]. There are, however, a quarter of a million chessplayers who annually spend no fewer than 200 hours on chess without making any progress." - Lasker
So:
1) no special talent required: average Joe = OK
2) 200 h is enough
3) You must do the right thing: 200 h of the wrong thing does not help
They can't, is the answer.
Well, the average Joe don't really get to 1 800 in 2 years in the first place, so perhaps the phrasing of the average Joe is a bit of an exaggeration.
Ok, but 1800 OTB is about 500 points stronger than the OP so... for 2 years OP's progress is not slow but it's not fast either.
And I only mention it because master is an OTB title. Essentially he's saying he got to something like 1500 in 2 years, and now wants to get to 2200 in another "couple of years," which is probably not enough time.
It depends. I've seen some 1 900 people Uscf around 1900 rapid here as well. I am beating 1 500+ FIDE players (found their ratings on FIDE website), and it is not really such a strange occurrence now, they are rated around 1 700 rapid here, while playing longer games. Perhaps there is a difference between rapid rating here achieved with long games (60|0 and 45|45 I usually play) and rapid rating in 10 minutes pool, but I have no basis to be sure.
So I think 500 points difference is an exaggeration, at least for most of the people. I think the average difference on this level , at least in the rapid pool I am playing is around 200 points, but it probably varies a bit from person to person.
This is the best comparison I know of, as it is based on a survey if I remember correctly. Of course, that +/- 135 and +/-220 is a pretty wide margin and it can vary a lot.
https://chessgoals.com/rating-comparison/
And sure, you are correct that 2-3 years will probably not be enough, but a couple of years may be like 5-6 as well (although I know a couple should mean around 2). In any case, it would be a great achievement.
Sounds good, now I have to fulfill that of course
1.play lots online and do post-mortem with engine or strong master (rapid or faster, limit the blitz, use increment and/or time delay)
2.read a book or two on endgames, silmans endgame guide and 100 endgames you must know is my suggestion
3. do chesstempo tactic puzzles like crazy. You must learn to stop relying on general principles and acclimate to judging all positions on concrete assessments.
4. slowly refine your opening repertoire. have 2-3 things for white, at least 2 defenses for the big 4 and at least 1 for the reasonable other white openings. take your exposure of rapid games as opportunities to refine and recall your repertoire.
This is what worked for me , (no human player to help me either). And it did the trick fairly quickly but my spotty playing consistency over the year scattered what would have likely been a 2 year jump.
I'm not master and have no experience on that business but i'd suggest you to play master games.. as much and faster as you can..
the more you see more you will recognize their patterns
@#62
<<3. You must learn to stop relying on general principles and acclimatise to judging all positions on concrete assessments>>
There's no such thing as concrete assessments, except in very simple cases.
1.play lots online and do post-mortem with engine or strong master (rapid or faster, limit the blitz, use increment and/or time delay)
2.read a book or two on endgames, silmans endgame guide and 100 endgames you must know is my suggestion
3. do chesstempo tactic puzzles like crazy. You must learn to stop relying on general principles and acclimate to judging all positions on concrete assessments.
4. slowly refine your opening repertoire. have 2-3 things for white, at least 2 defenses for the big 4 and at least 1 for the reasonable other white openings. take your exposure of rapid games as opportunities to refine and recall your repertoire.
This is what worked for me , (no human player to help me either). And it did the trick fairly quickly but my spotty playing consistency over the year scattered what would have likely been a 2 year jump.
This is the advice I am looking for, from someone who did it themselves. Thank you very much
I'm only an USCF expert but my tips are to play OTB and always analyze your games, also read classic books like My System and read books by Legends. ALso do a lot of puzzles like chesstempo and have a good repertoire of openings that fit your style of play. But I think it's quite hard without a coach although people like Hans got to such a high level without a coach so you could probably do the same.
They can't, is the answer.
Well, the average Joe don't really get to 1 800 in 2 years in the first place, so perhaps the phrasing of the average Joe is a bit of an exaggeration.
Ok, but 1800 OTB is about 500 points stronger than the OP so... for 2 years OP's progress is not slow but it's not fast either.
And I only mention it because master is an OTB title. Essentially he's saying he got to something like 1500 in 2 years, and now wants to get to 2200 in another "couple of years," which is probably not enough time.
It depends. I've seen some 1 900 people Uscf around 1900 rapid here as well. I am beating 1 500+ FIDE players (found their ratings on FIDE website), and it is not really such a strange occurrence now, they are rated around 1 700 rapid here, while playing longer games. Perhaps there is a difference between rapid rating here achieved with long games (60|0 and 45|45 I usually play) and rapid rating in 10 minutes pool, but I have no basis to be sure.
So I think 500 points difference is an exaggeration, at least for most of the people. I think the average difference on this level , at least in the rapid pool I am playing is around 200 points, but it probably varies a bit from person to person.
This is the best comparison I know of, as it is based on a survey if I remember correctly. Of course, that +/- 135 and +/-220 is a pretty wide margin and it can vary a lot.
https://chessgoals.com/rating-comparison/
And sure, you are correct that 2-3 years will probably not be enough, but a couple of years may be like 5-6 as well (although I know a couple should mean around 2). In any case, it would be a great achievement.
I edited that after I posted it. Yeah, 500 is too much.
I don't know much about rapid, I've hardly played it (not only on chess.com, but I've basically never played it online in general).
I've been impressed with exactly zero of the 1900s I've played in rapid so far (I don't think I've played anyone 2000 yet). But when I play a 2000 USCF player OTB it's really hard for me. IMO there's no comparison. Definitely multiple 100s of points difference... but how much I don't know.
I actually played a few 2 000+ players, and I have an equal to a positive score, on a sample size of like 5-6 games (mostly in 30|0 games when I can't wait for 60|0). Of course this doesn't mean anything, simply a coincidence, but some of them were exclusively playing 10|0 before that game, so perhaps it made some difference.
For whatever reason, people tend to play some calmer maneuvering positions where I have to worry mostly about how will my pawns look etc., at least those I've encountered. In those games, I was mainly able to survive tactics where I am bad at in my opinion and to get to the endgame, where I can sometimes hold my own against people better than myself.
It is sometimes really strange. 1 600 and 1 700 launch some attack and I just die, and these realistically stronger people just pace themselves to a draw.
In one game, I was totally lost, but the opponent thought he could sacrifice a rook and then get it back, but he couldn't and I won, and he had a ton of time left.