How far can you realistically get without studying openings/tactics/endgame etc?
Sort:
Around 1800 probably
Jun 5, 2022
0
#3
I don't intend to ever study openings formally. I'm only interested in learning from playing, but in doing so I'm studying openings in a sense.
I have never met a “prodigy”, but everyone I have ever met who was rated over 1400 (OTB, not online) studied chess, reviewed their games (at the very least in the form of a post-mortem with their opponent), had an opening repertoire, and chess was their first or second hobby.
Jun 5, 2022
0
#5
1800 is a common pure casual peak after A LOT of games with perhaps a few outliers approaching 2000. But basically everyone above that has studied at least some part of the game well. Be it opening book on their repertoire, or basic endgames or lots of tactic puzzles.
#1
"My progress to this point has all been trial and error based."
++ That is the best way: trial and error, play and analysis. AlphaZero got to 3000 just by playing 700,000 games against itself with no other input but the Laws of Chess.
"I don't know any openings" ++ You do not need to
"have never studied tactics" ++ You cannot study tactics, you can practice tactics
"or endgame" ++ Do you know the 5 basic checkmates? Do you know how to play KP vs. K?.
"I'm just playing for the fun of it." ++ Chess is a game, it is meant to be fun.
"at what point did you folks hit a wall and realise you need to actually do a bit of study to progress further?" ++ The only aspect that needs study is the endgame. Without endgame knowledge you cannot reach 2000. Without opening knowledge you cannot reach 2500.
Two things, you could be a genius or a bighead
Just reread this today and it comes off as a thinly veiled brag.. which was far from my intention. My progress has been verrrry slow. I've just played a lot of games. When I lose I generally review the game and check where it went wrong. That's the extent of my "training" though. I was just curious how far this approach might take me is all.
I haven't studied any end games or openings, haven't felt the need/wish yet. I would estimate I could get to around 2200 rapid rating without putting any effort into studying end games or openings. Alot of my losses are still just being careless for a move or two.
tygxc wrote:
Do you know the 5 basic checkmates? Do you know how to play KP vs. K?.
The only aspect that needs study is the endgame. Without endgame knowledge you cannot reach 2000. Without opening knowledge you cannot reach 2500.
Interesting. What are the 5 basic checkmates? I'm not sure how I'd fare in a KP vs K situation. I guess I would try and get my king to the top of the board to protect the path for the pawn.
#12
"What are the 5 basic checkmates?"
1) KQ vs. K
2) KR vs. K
3) KBB vs. K
4) KBN vs. K
5) KNN vs. KP
Jun 8, 2022
0
#14
I studied and played the Radio Shack Kasparov computer to level H4, joined a club, and I'm still not very good. 1100 with 78% accuracy (which I'm not sure means anything). I think it has as much to do with how our brains work, as much as studying and learning.
Jun 8, 2022
0
#16
Also king knight knight vs pawn is an extremely hard to pull off checkmate tygxc
#17
No pain, no gain.
It is hard, but rewarding.
raminguy wrote:
You've done puzzles stop pretending you haven't studied.
Not pretending anything.. I never would have considered puzzles studying but maybe I just haven't put n the time for them to impact my game. I very rarely do them, mainly because I only have a free account. I really don't think they've played any part in my progress.
Jun 8, 2022
0
#20
First of all, I don't disagree with anyone's post. If they said 1200 or 2000 or etc.
However, if you study nothing, not even your own games, then you'll be one of these people who have 10s of thousands of games and are still below 1000. Yes these people exist.
The real question becomes what does "study" mean to you. People who play many games, review their games, and look at many GM games, all for fun, might become GM level without "studying" with the caveat that what they did would be considered study by >99% of people.
Also at the heart of this question is typically a beginner wondering how lazy they can be and still improve. The answer to this implied sentiment is "not much." People who improve enjoy working on their chess. "Study" sometimes means "that stuff I do to improve when it's not fun anymore."
I play 10min rapid games casually for fun and am tapping on the door of a 1600 rating. My progress to this point has all been trial and error based. I don't know any openings and have never studied tactics or endgame. I'm just playing for the fun of it.
I am curious though, at what point did you folks hit a wall and realise you need to do a bit of study to progress further? I guess I'm curious to know if a little effort would go a long way at this point.
Thanks
edit: Just reread this today and it comes off as a thinly veiled brag.. which was far from my intention. It seems to have touched a nerve with some people. My progress has been verrrry slow. I've just played a lot of games. When I lose I generally review the game and check where it went wrong. That's the extent of my "training" though. I was just curious how far this approach might take me is all.