How consistent to be National Master?

You sound like you have only seen CTS, and even for that you're underestimating the effect. The tactics trainer here on chess com and the one on chess tempo give much more time than 3 seconds for "non-cheapo" type of problems, and are actually the most helpful training tools ever created in my opinion (together with Chess Mentor perhaps). I'm 100% sure training at tactics sites don't lead to "detoriation of skills" if it's done wisely, although I agree the slower ones (and in fact untimed ones) are more beneficial. 

I'm not surprised, this is pretty much what I'd been told, but I was told by a non-Russian player so I wasn't sure how true it was.  Of course not all the kids can make it to first category strength in 2 years, but the ones that do are given extra help to continue study (is what I had been told).

I was also told that if you walk around telling people "I'm a chess player" they will think you are at least ~2400 strength, there's no such thing as a "chessplayer" being rated 1800   In the United States, a "chessplayer" means you know how the pieces move... well en passant may be a mystery, and still fuzzy on if there can be more than 1 queen with promotions... but the basic moves they know... there is no comparison

I find that the more chess I play the more addicted I become. I have a very fixated mind. So if I become legitimately interested in something then my pursuit becomes that much more.... (for lack of more word choice) legitimate. For instance, just last week during anatomy class I played a game of chess a member of the chess team from across the room. He set up the board in front of himself during class and I would pass a note to him with my move on it. Essentially I would play him "blindfolded".

There's no way I could have done that even 9 moves in a year ago. But now, with my addiction to the game increasing, I find it more like a pleasant day dream to visualize all the pieces and I'll now either win or lose these games in 15-30 moves against opponents.

Admittedly, they're hardly competition, but if I played against someone that was any good at all without seeing the board, I'd be toast

So to get back to the question... I think that it really just comes down to an interest and how far you're willing to pursue a goal.

That's pretty cool thesexyknight, I'm sure you're something of a chess legend over there

Our club used to meet at a small cafe and on a few nights an expert player would play two weaker players blindfold at once, turning his chair around to face the wall.  The staff thought it was amazing and almost superhuman heh

I always thought about how much it would improve my standard gaming of chess, if I were to train myself to play blind folded. As in, be able to visualize the moves to the board accurately and quickly---Nf4, I can do it even now, but it just takes two seconds, I should be able to visualize it instantly.

Once you put a ton of chess moves and pieces on the board it becomes harder, but I think I can accomplish this, I just wonder if it will be beneficial?

Those are very wise words imo, and like in most chess-related subjects, not only limited to chess.

There's an old joke about it. Q: how's a Russian dumb blonde different from a dumb blond from the USA? A: A Russian dumb blonde might beat you at chess!

Most people in Russia are of 1500-1700 strength or above. A chess player is indeed someone of at least master level, 2400+ probably. A FIDE master would be scorned upon: "you are not a chess player, just an amateur chess coach".

I've seen many different tactics trainers. They are either of the cheapo type ,like I've said, or good ones. Those are very useful, of course. My point was that non-titled players sometimes achieve higher results than top pros in either the cheapo type (which is not about chess mastery at all), or by cheating.

Of course, that doesn't mean that a bright Expert who is good at tactics can't score more than an old IM who prefers to play strategically. But we're talking about the top of the lists.

Yeah. I have to frequently explain to these people that they are really really really bad compared to most. It would be something similar to playing a 1200 rated player from correspondence chess (except with better opening knowledge).

orangehonda

Thanks for starting this thread. This is something that I've been also thinking about for a long time.

NM tonydal

Thanks for all your great insights in this discussion. I am curious though, when you play OTB, are you able to consistently see 5 moves deep? Were you able to see that far ahead in your road to becoming a Master, i.e. when you were rated like 2160 USCF or something? I'm curious because I'm trying to gauge my own play-strength and progress as a player. I feel like it takes an enormous amount of work to see 2 moves ahead in every position. When I play against my Master-level computer, after I get past the opening (about 5-12 moves into the game), it takes me like 3-5 minutes per move to check for blunders. And almost automatically, between moves like 13-21, I pretty much always end up dropping a pawn or find myself with a hideous looking position that I just want to walk away from. I feel like it'd take me several years to be able to consistently see 3-4 moves ahead without taking 5 minutes/move.

I'm not sure what you mean exactly by top pros, of course Kramnik and Anand would dominate the lists if they practiced at them, but we were talking about a few number of IMs, NMs and GMs practicing on the servers, and regarding them, the above statement is not true. This could be mainly (or partly) because they aren't taking the practice as seriously as those amateurs do, but some amateurs just perform better at them fair and square.

My initial point was that this doesn't mean those amateurs are better at tactics than those titled players in general. It's "consistency" (all the things associated with it in this thread) that counts.

Like you said though they may not necessarily be better at tactics... which means in their games they still might miss opportunities stronger players wouldn't (one reason being there's nothing to signal when a tactic/tough defense is possible).

So in practice they may not be very consistent, even though they may have a lot of book knowledge and in post mortems may be able to find great moves -- as long as they can't apply it "on the clock" (and in every game) it wont show.

@orange_honda, absolutely, I do pretty well on tactics trainer, and yet, I never have the opportunity to do the amazing moves I do in tactics trainer. Not only do I actually miss elementary tactics in-game (post analysis), but I can't construct the situations where a tactic may arise...

execute, that's interesting that you mention you don't have opportunities for tactics. In my case, I get them all the time in  my games, and my problem is that I often miss them. I'm just guessing here, but I, well, guess, you aren't extensively analyzing your completed games with a computer, no? I believe all games at all levels are full of tactics, and computer analysis (not done automatically, but done by you directing the engine) is very good at pointing out not only where you have gone wrong and what opportunities you have missed, but also what hasn't come up in the game at all but was still there all the time (like some lines that aren't necessarily prefferable, but need to be calculated anyway).

You can also try changing your repertoire or study material like vukovic's art of attack.

Tisdall recommends it in his improve your chess now, but even the thought of it scares me so I never tried my luck at it, which I assume is seriously low anyway.

'Perhaps I am out of line here...but I frankly think it's a waste of time to "check for blunders."'

Whoa! Wasn't expecting that one! Unfortunately I don't think I can agree. I know you need to have confidence in your calculating ability to succeed, but nevertheless playing a complicated line without checking it is really risky, as the smallest miss can change everything. I notice when I'm analyzing I'm constantly changing my evaluation of lines I calculate. Right when I'm about to play something that looks good three moves down the line I find a new move. It's just so easy to make errors in your analysis, and I need to catch those errors before I play a move of course. Maybe it's different for masters though, who probably have a much more efficient way of analyzing (I can calculate 5-6 moves sometimes, but often not very clearly), but isn't is still risky not to blunder check?

All I know is blunder checking has saved me a lot.

At my level anyway, I have to agree with Elubas... maybe what tonydal is trying to get across is don't play the whole game primarily thinking how can I avoid screwing up instead of what are the best moves I can find (for my opponent too).  So maybe it's a psychology thing?  If you try to find the best/most challenging moves for your opponent as well that's like blunder checking.

Anyway in my games also, once I decide on a move there's a small blunder check, then I calculate it, and after calculating it and I find it's reasonable/good again I blunder check it before playing it... and of course I still blunder sometimes anyway.  I'm not necessarily focused on blunders, I just try to find the best moves in response to mine... maybe it's better that way?  Anyway obviously this helps me not blunder as much.

Maybe we could start a blindfold chess topic.  It seems like some people naturally start to be able to do it, and others (even if they're strong players) aren't so good at it / can't do it.  This is the first time I've heard it suggested to help improve your play.  I really don't think there's a need to be able to play an entire game blindfolded, as long as you can visualize (lets say 5 moves like in tonydal's post) then you can at least become a titled player, it just depends on the quality of the moves you calculate.

I actually think it's more important not to make mistakes than to look for nice offensive moves. You want to have both, but if I could pick one it would be not making mistakes and blunders myself.

 NM tonydal

Thanks again for the post. It was an insightful and enjoyable read. I'll definitely try to be more proactive against stronger players. I guess I now understand why I always get clobbered by my computer: its vision is just flat-out superior. When I focus at standard time controls OTB, I can see like 1-2 full moves ahead about 90% of the time, and 3 moves ahead maybe about 80% of the time. Like you said, some positions are just easier than others. Stretching my vision beyond this currently burns up a lot of clock."5-6 moves ahead consistently": I guess I have my new goal in mind!

And again, thanks for the suggestions and anecdotes. 35! years ago huh . . . ;)