GabGarbage kirjoitti:
If you just move pieces, you can get to at least 1000 elo.
That is the same strategy even Magnus Carlsen uses. He just moves the pieces.
Now the only hard part is to figure out which piece to move and where to move it.
how good can a player be without studying chess?
Sort:
GabGarbage kirjoitti:
Just eat those chess pieces and easy win.
The pieces I got are tournament size so I would suffocate if I tried to eat them.
And the ones in online games are virtual, not real, very hard to eat those.
Aug 18, 2023
0
#24
Habanababananero wrote:
mongemaconha kirjoitti:
Habanababananero wrote:
mongemaconha kirjoitti:
Habanababananero wrote:
Reaching 900 in a month is not that strange and I do not think it is possible to start at 0 rating. You for example started at around 800-900 range and that is where you are at now, a month later also. So you have not increased your strength from 0 to 900.
Also the leap from 1000-1900 will be quite a lot bigger and harder to achieve than the leap from 0 too 900 would have been, had you taken that leap in the first place.
Also I think comparing chess and CS: GO is rather pointless. The latter is a FPS game and been around for around a decade. There is not much deep thinking done in FPS games.
Chess on the other hand is a game that is centuries old, has been studied by many brilliant individuals and requires deep thinking, at least if you are not going to be playing only blitz.
Now if you can figure out such things as opposition, the rule of the square, how to mate with 2 Bishops, creating a passed pawn in a 3 vs 3 pawns situation, the Lucena position, Philidor position and all those other endgames and somehow manage play without any knowledge of opening theory and reach NM levels, then good for you, but I think it is highly unlikely you will get to that level any time soon without studying.
Yeah, I don't think it's strange or something to reach 900, it's actually easy. But I'm just saying, i reached 900 in a month, then I would take 59 months to reach 1800, and the numbers aren't that different... It's like around 15 rating per month (not that linear). And I compared because they're just games, people play it to have fun, but it's not a comparison if you ask me. And i know 1 opening, it's called London system
But you have to understand you were basically 800-900 right from the start. Your rating was in that range after only a couple of games. So basically you have not gained 900 rating points more chess strength, you are maybe 100 rating points stronger than you were when you opened your account.
And the next 900 points are going to be a LOT tougher to gain. And after that, there is still a lot to learn before you are NM strength.
See, the rating will kind of increase logarithmically as you increase your chess strength. After every 100 points, it will be harder to earn the next 100, so the gap from 1000-1900 is a lot larger than the gap from 0 to 900.
I went from 400 (where I started) to 900 in 1,5 months. And now I have been playing, and studying, and analyzing for around 22,5 months and have only reached a peak rating of 1441 rapid. I have put in way more effort to go from 900 to 1400 than I put in to go from 400 to 900. Like exponentially more effort.
Thanks, I see it now. Life's harder than what I expected, lol, i really thought that just by playing causally you could reach 1700 in a couple months, that's an absurd. And congrats for reaching 1.4k
I am not saying it is not possible that you reach 1700 by just playing casually. People have done that (or at least people say they have). I think it is going to be pretty unlikely that you get to that level very fast without studying though and that is still very far from NM level.
There is always that one in a million chance that you are a chess prodigy, of course, but seeing that you have not been going up steadily since you started, I am sorru to say I think it is unlikely.
I still think you have good chances of becoming a very strong player, do not get me wrong, I just think you might have to put in a little work for that.
It would be a waste if I was a prodigy lol, I'm too lazy. But I had some evolution at this month, i started around 30/07 and I used to blunder a way more. and it was like, at my first day I reached 951 because of a win streak (of 6 matches, guys were resigning kinda easy), then I lost a lot of matches and went to ~700, so I got to 800 and now (like 2 days ago) i reached 900 again, but it's not a steadily progress i suppose. Anyway, thx for the help, I'll study, it's probably interesting
mongemaconha wrote:
Great story, what's the name of the book?
Pandofini's Endgame Course, lol, I still have it till this day, however that was 30 years ago. Nowadays I would start with Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual, that came out a few years after college for myself.
I'm not sure if you are aware but Chess.com works in combination with Chessable. This site is a online chess college and a great place to learn. It's a better platform then just simply reading a book. For a newcomer there is more free information then you can handle. It also has the ability to analyze all of your Chess.com games and then prepare a study guide for you based on what it sees in your gameplay. This removes the "what mistakes am I making" part of figuring out what to study. Here is what they have alone on the endgame:
https://www.chessable.com/chess-endgames/
Loving to play is a fire, see how that spreads when you win more and more games and you start to see the results of all of that study time in your play. Now you're in trouble, because once you see and realize that the direct result in continuing to study is an ever increasing ELO, regardless of the rate, there won't be a single day that goes by where you don't want to improve 
Best of luck in your endeavors....
Great decision to study. Find some good books for absolute beginners and if you get time, don't forget to watch YouTube videos meant for beginners. Doing all this should be sufficient.
Aug 18, 2023
0
#27
Allwyze wrote:
mongemaconha wrote:
Great story, what's the name of the book?
Pandofini's Endgame Course, lol, I still have it till this day, however that was 30 years ago. Nowadays I would start with Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual, that came out a few years after college for myself.
I'm not sure if you are aware but Chess.com works in combination with Chessable. This site is a online chess college and a great place to learn. It's a better platform then just simply reading a book. For a newcomer there is more free information then you can handle. It also has the ability to analyze all of your Chess.com games and then prepare a study guide for you based on what it sees in your gameplay. This removes the "what mistakes am I making" part of figuring out what to study. Here is what they have alone on the endgame:
https://www.chessable.com/chess-endgames/
Loving to play is a fire, see how that spreads when you win more and more games and you start to see the results of all of that study time in your play. Now you're in trouble, because once you see and realize that the direct result in continuing to study is an ever increasing ELO, regardless of the rate, there won't be a single day that goes by where you don't want to improve
Best of luck in your endeavors....
Thanks! You helped me a lot.
Aug 18, 2023
0
#28
rupam44 wrote:
Great decision to study. Find some good books for absolute beginners and if you get time, don't forget to watch YouTube videos meant for beginners. Doing all this should be sufficient.
Ok, I'll do all of this. Thank y'all
Aug 18, 2023
0
#29
mongemaconha wrote:
I'm a new player and I would like to never study, but I wanna improve (just because I'll get nothing from studying chess, would you study CS go, for example? of course not, just play it and you'll eventually get better). So, there's any player who did some considerable improvement without studying, like a NM at least? It's actually my first month, so if it's impossible to improve a lot just by experience, I'll probably stop playing :|(sorry if there's any grammar mistake, I'm not a native speaker and I don't study english as well :p)
you get better in games from studying your own gameplay, in chess you study others gameplay to get better faster
if you take and study/watch peoples games in fps gameplay and notice their good habbits that replace your bad ones you will get way better
I just play blitz and has never studied, but I do look at previous games to determine what I could of done better. The highest rank I’ve gotten is 2011.
Aug 18, 2023
0
#31
no need to study, who needs studying.. play play play play and after 257yrs latr you will be master.. of nothing hahaha
Aug 18, 2023
0
#32
mongemaconha wrote:
I'm a new player and I would like to never study, but I wanna improve...
So you are saying you want to become good at chess without putting in the work? Yeah, hate to break it to you, but that's not going to happen 
If you want to improve (at pretty much anything, but especially something as knowledge-heavy as chess), then you need to put in work and study as well as practice (experience).
If you don't want to spend a lot of your time studying, then your progress will be limited, but you can still do it if you play a lot and keep the emphasis on trying to learn and improve.
There is no way someone is getting to NM level in today's chess world with zero study - even if they are a prodigy in chess, it still takes work to reach this level. Maybe back in the 1800s or earlier, a natural-born prodigy could have advanced further without study, but this is mainly because the competition was generally weaker as information was harder to come by and even the top players in the world were refining "newer" positional concepts which are now accepted as fundamentals today.
How high rated can someone today get without specifically studying chess? It depends on their natural talent, but this is more of a hypothetical since no one today literally has zero study. GM Magnus Carlsen was considered a prodigy by many and he basically just learned how the pieces moves and was around 1800 level (clearly, his understanding of the game [natural talent or learned] was great even back then), but even a prodigy like Carlsen required a massive amount of work and study to reach higher levels.
I worked a ton on my chess (some more than me yes, but my progress was still impressive) and within my first year on chess.com I passed 1500 rating...but I was certainly studying chess and learning and playing a lot.
Even passing 1000 rating for the first time is a big accomplishment for many people. Reaching 1000 rating probably requires study from most people. Some are more naturally-gifted with chess and may reach 1000+ rating without study, but their progress will not continue if they aren't putting in the work eventually.
Long story short- you are going nowhere without work and study.
Aug 18, 2023
0
#34
gunsandchess wrote:
I just play blitz and has never studied, but I do look at previous games to determine what I could of done better. The highest rank I’ve gotten is 2011.
Have you ever reviewed one of your own games? That is a form of study. Have you ever watched a chess video to learn something? That is a form of study. Studying doesn't always have to look like opening a book and taking notes. There is no way you reached 2000 (even blitz) without some studying.
Aug 18, 2023
0
#35
GabGarbage wrote:
If you just move pieces, you can get to at least 1000 elo.
Not true. The global average rating is currently in the 600s. Most people never reach 1000 rating. It isn't that it is so tough and they aren't capable of this level; it is just that most people don't invest enough time to realize some of their potential, or they invest lots of time into their chess, but aren't learning as optimally as they could.
I've only just started to study chess, I've reached just over 1600 blitz, thought currently 1500, with no study, but you can't get much further without studying, for me that involved going back over the games I've lost and understanding how to deal with these common openings that happen time and time again, for example, I lost to the Vienna gambit opening, I now know what moves to make to combat this when they play either Knight or Queen to F3 after I've hit them with the falkbaer, insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
For the time being I'm going to win/lose/win/lose/win/lose/win/lose matches, but by the end of studying how to deal with all these opening gambits/traps/move orders along with basic end games and tactical ideas, I should start to increase rating and reach maybe 1800 by the end of 2024.
OreoSmoreo287 kirjoitti:
mongemaconha wrote:
I'm a new player and I would like to never study, but I wanna improve (just because I'll get nothing from studying chess, would you study CS go, for example? of course not, just play it and you'll eventually get better). So, there's any player who did some considerable improvement without studying, like a NM at least? It's actually my first month, so if it's impossible to improve a lot just by experience, I'll probably stop playing :|(sorry if there's any grammar mistake, I'm not a native speaker and I don't study english as well :p)
Well, speaking from experience, as someone who did light study of opening theory, some endgames, and watched videos related to chess on and off for a year (and more), playing games nearly every day. This allowed me to reach a rapid rating of 1700 in a little under a year, starting at a rapid rating of 850. Granted, I can pretty confidently say, that this isn't the norm. Also, I can tell you now, that there will come a point where you will plateau, and your rating will seem to cease to climb. You will probably need to continue playing regularly for a long time to break this barrier, or you may never. Just don't give up and keep at it. Improvement in the game of chess takes a lot of time.
Though, In terms of achieving something like a rating of even 2000 on chess.com, this takes years for almost everyone, at a bare minimum, and that's while studying. Most chess players never achieve a rating of 2000. Even some that have been playing and studying for decades. I can tell you right now, that unless you study heavily, you are never going to get to even 2200 FIDE, which is the rating threshold for the Candidate Master Title, the lowest FIDE Title.
It takes serious effort and time to improve at chess, and to think that it would be possible to achieve even a rating of 18-1900 without study is flat out naive. People achieve ratings like that through knowledge of aspects of the game like openings, mating patterns and techniques, theoretically drawn and winning endgames, middle game tactics, pawn structures, positional evaluation, etc. All of which require study to learn.
So please, take a bit of time to do puzzles or watch a few videos, and set your goals toward more realistic levels. Maybe try to break the 1000 barrier, then try to get to 1200.
I am going to point out the obvious here, but while you did indeed make the climb from 800s to 1700s in under a year, it is important to know that you had close to two years of chess experience when that climb started.
Now those little under two years of prior chess experience are probably a rather important contributing factor in your fast rating climb from 800s to 1700s and probably made it easier for you to put to use the new information you learned while you did the studying. So I think this speaks volumes about how important studying actually is.
@kesetokaiba if someone has brain and uses it then they can even learn something from blitz games by doing short self analysis.
You can reach 1500 in 6-12 months if you analyze your games and do some puzzles. Also there is a lot of good content on youtube.
You do not have to read a book to get better at chess there are other ways to study that might depending on your preferences be more fun.
Aug 19, 2023
0
#40
Have a look at Sultan Khan on Wiki to see how it´s done. Excerpt:
"When Sultan Khan first travelled to Europe his English was so rudimentary that he needed an interpreter. Unable to read or write, he never studied any books on the game, and he was put into the hands of trainers who were also his rivals in play. He never mastered openings which, by nature empirical, cannot be learned by the application of common sense alone. Under these adverse circumstances, and having known international chess for a mere seven years, only half of which was spent in Europe, Sultan Khan nevertheless had few peers in the middlegame, was among the world's best two or three endgame players, and one of the world's best ten players. This achievement brought admiration from Capablanca who called him a genius, an accolade he rarely bestowed."
If you just move pieces, you can get to at least 1000 elo.