How consistent to be National Master?

For those of you who've made it this far, I'm wondering how much consistency plays a role?  Looking over some of my past tournament games I notice that even though I'm finding good moves sometimes, there are also tactics or ideas I miss that I think I would be able to find if given the position as a problem to solve, or if I had been "rested" or whatever excuse you want to give.

It occurred to me that if I was ever going to reach 2200 that more than what I would be able to solve or understand, it would depend largely on if I were able to do these things every move for a whole game, game after game.

Or is 2200 just another hundred to reach, just like 1200-1300 or 1700-1800 etc, the only difference being the percentage of people who make it that far?  To someone with a lot of talent I don't think reaching 2200 would necessarily mean this much, but to an average player like me, it seems "making master" would require more than good moves, but a large amount of consistency as well.

Really nice question. Hope you get a few good answers.  I've been slowly growing aware of a similar problem of mine that relates to consistency: I can do a lot of accurate thinking when I'm in a "puzzle mode"  and this quality of thinking gets diluted when I'm in a  "game mode", even if it's a slow OTB tournament where I have enough time on the clock.  

It's almost insane to think that I tend to work twice as hard on each move during a lunch break at work but when I drag myself to a tournament and get a full day to play the best chess that I would like,  I tend to cut corners OTB and not work hard on EACH move (hence the consistency angle).

When I asked my wife (not a chess coach, but certainly a harsh and objective critic), she responds with "maybe you're just too content with being where you are  ... you don't really want to get any better, you just like the idea of being better".

I guess there's really only a few ways to fix lazy now, is there? :)

Just another hundred to reach...

I would say a ton of consistency, and I think that's one big thing that serperates strong class players from masters. I totally outplayed an NM recently (in all phases of the game, in all ways, until the second to last move... grr) but first of all, I blundered the win away, actually losing, and second, I don't think I could do that everyday. The former shows how I can still play a really bad move to still lose the game despite how I played otherwise, and the latter is obviously significant because you need to always play like an NM to be one.  I also was beat by a 1400 not long before. But it definitley showed the potential I have. Now I just have to play like that every game, which is no easy task.

Ok, so I'm not totally crazy for thinking this way, I see a few people agreed with me -- I don't necessarily disagree with you either bacteriainfection.

But for example I think Dan Heisman suggests that if you can blunder check (one move deep) each move before you play it, 100% of the time, then it's worth 150 points immediately (for a player under 1600).  When masters improve 150  points I think it comes from somewhere else entirely.

@Shivsky
That may be it, I think some of them just hate to lose, and maybe even if they win, hate any mistakes they made.  Not just being mildly annoyed, but something that keeps them up a night.  Some quote I've seen float around, "Anamateur practices until they get it right, a professional practices until they can't get it wrong." something like that.

@Elubas
Congrats, I think that shows potential, that's one of the most frustrating ways to lose though, hope you were able to bounce back for the next round   The fact that 1 bad move can outweigh 40 good ones can be our saving grace... or our worst nightmare.

It's nice to hear from the other side of it, as a non-master "looking up" there's sure to be misconceptions.  Like you said, not many GMs would be so impressed with your ability to play some kind of "nearly perfect game" as I'm almost making it sound.

So being more realistic... being flexible enough to admit when somethings gone wrong and mentally tough enough to grind out a tough defense for hours if necessary... and tactical awareness.  Can't say I'm surprised at the tactical awareness thing, although I'm not sure how much I'd learn at the moment from being crushed by a computer again and again   I'll keep the advice in mind though, and being willing to ignore your last evaluation and look at things with fresh eyes, to be honest about the postion, over and over again during a game is probably worth a lot.

Master, as defined by dictionary.com

a person eminently skilled in something, as an occupation, art, or science

A Master, by definition, is going to be highly skilled, to a professional level by most accounts. I am not a Master, because I'm too lazy right now, but I've got a bit of advice.

1. Study your fundamentals, preferably using a computer so the opposition will be precise, and it will also be more time efficient. As you make these elementary ideas your mother tounge, you will subconciously begin to meld the parts into a whole chess system, your chess system.

2. Play against a computer in tournament controls to test your skill. For leisure, you can play online, but play seriously and retain your game records for computer analysis.

3. Hold yourself in high esteem. One good way to improve in chess is to have a good self image. You certainly want to act in a respectful manner, but you should always play as though you think you cannot be beaten! The beautiful thing about chess is that there are no tricks. The laws of chess do not change just because of the players. A rook & king vs a king ending is the same if I'm playing an 1100 rated player or if I'm playing Magnus. Remember NOT to let the rating of your opponent skew your assessment of the power of your own pieces. In the words of Tal - "Fischer is Fischer, but a knight is still a knight."

I think he just means that players under 1600 drop pieces too much, and if you allow your mind to "check out" 1 or 2 times during a game, it can cost a lot.

I agree with the tactics.  I felt an increase in playing strength when I started to try to simply string together 2-3 good moves at a time (and focus on accuracy) instead of trying to calculate tons of moves all over the board.  Yes, I'd bet a human that was tactically perfect 5 moves deep would be at least a GM really.  When a computer does it, it's making up for any actual understanding.  If a human were able to avoid tactics 5 moves deep 100% of the time, that player would be incredibly strong.

The title I chose "national master" may not have been very good, maybe FM would have been better because it's international, and users here are from all around the world.  In my country you reach national master by getting a rating to 2200 or above, this is the level of player I'm wondering about.  But you're right "master" is a relative term and may not mean much on its own.

Playing against my computer at tournament time controls isn't a bad idea, right now though I think going over 1 meaningful GM game for the same amount of time (letting it's patterns and lessons really sink in) would do more for me.  Although I like the idea of being ruthlessly punished for tactical mistakes... every time you get away with it, you're practicing mistakes and building them into habits.

I agree with your idea of acting responsibly, but in your mind being very sure of yourself, even to the point of arrogance.  It's a funny mix of pride and reality for me when I sit down to play -- a mix of a fiery passion to utterly destory your opponent, and a calmness to assess each move slowly and objectively at the same time.  There was some quote about how during one game a player can experiance the whole range of emotions, from joy, to depression, and back again.

Yeah tonydal, about computers. Now not suprisingly I prefer to face humans, not only because the games are more fun, but they are capable of making almost any mistake even if they're really good. Computers are very annoying to play because they punish you so ruthlessly with any tactical error at all, and are extremely stubborn and accurate defenders, hard for a human to overcome, BUT, I wouldn't be suprised if it would be an excellent training tool to as you said be tactically alert and be able to both do and overcome dour defense when needed. Maybe I should start doing that.

@orangehonda: You bet it was painful. He would have been the first NM I ever beat, and convincingly (though to be fair his rating went down to 2100 when we played). And I was still working hard and making good moves even when I was winning, but on the move of the blunder I even saw it before i moved there; problem was it was touch move and my king had only one legal move so I had to play it anyway. I think I did it for a variety of reasons mixed together: nerves, time pressure, thinking after I traded into an endgame my king was completely safe, and of course the touch move rule!

Btw, one should be rated FIDE 2450 or higher and have an IM norm to become a national master in Russia, the so-called "master of sports in chess".

@Natalia, kind of discouraging isn't it? I mean what if someone who can potentially become a GM, gives up after reaching 2200 because he thinks he can't even make it to national master...

Quite frankly, I think chess is very unrewarding via titles and such. A guy becomes world champion or challenges the world champion, but is still just another GM.

In Russia 2200 is nothing hehe, why would someone give up after only playing for 2-3 years

Ok, maybe I'm exaggerating a little...

People give up things they love all the time, simply because the next level is perhaps exponentially harder to get too. I mean if a GM is 2600, perhaps getting to 2700+ for him is an enormous amount of work, and maybe they quit and opt for an easier full-time job.

Actually, I think the titles are perfect. There is no need to dumb down the requirements to be considered at least a master any more than it is now at 2200.

I get the feeling that in Alekhine's time someone who played like a 2200 wouldn't even be considered a master.

Well, if someone has GM-potential, he will most likely pass past 2200 in his yearly childhood without thinking about quitting. Some do, actually, but there are many more who keep on playing. Besides, you can always obtain international titles. Isn't it kind of cool that a "basic" Russian master is supposed to be rated higher than even International Masters, not to mention FIDE masters?  The same concerns Russian Grandmaster/GM. I don't care too much for titles, but receiving a Russian GM badge and certificate was still pleasant. 

Sad, but true.

I think "consistency" (by your definition) and mindset is sometimes all it's about to make the next leap when you're above a certain level. There are non-titled players in tactics servers who top the lists, leaving behind NM, IMs, even GMs a condireable amount of points, I think that's a pretty relevant sign. Not only in untimed rating lists, but in timed ones too, which is a better indicator of general playing strength and where cheating is almost impossible. However, what that means is only that they are better than those titled players at "tactical puzzle solving", not tactics necessarily.

When watching IM D. Pruess' analysis here in chess com, I saw nothing "special", he was still calculating moves like everyone is supposed to do, he doesn't assess positions in the speed of light, he is like, well, a normal human being , but his head is clear as day, and he is very objective and systematic in his calculations, he is aware of many factors at a time and doesn't forget to come back to them in his analysis and does all these quickly (still slower than the speed of light though). Having that type of analytical mind at work when a position is presented at you is something I could only dream of. But still I can get better than where I am.

No wonder that some untitled people lead in the "spot a cheapo in 3 seconds" lists. That's not what top-level chess is about. In fact, it leads to detoriation of skills and superficial play. It's like trying to find out who the best mathematician is by asking questions such as 6*7.

Compared to amateurs masters calculate a) deeper b) more precisely, e.g. with less mistakes c) they know what to calculate, and what not to, i.e. spend their time more wisely d) systematically, e.g. not going over the same lines over and over again

Not that much. There are kids who start studying chess at, let's say, 7. At 8 or 9 they get 1st category (that is about the same as Expert in USA). In another two years they become candidate masters. That is 3-4 years to reach the level of an NM.