If you have to ask, it's not good enough.
how good is 1900
Sort:
To Colby-Covington and bong711: Very good answers!
deaf_blue_bottles wrote:
Somewhere around 1800 to master is an annoying middleground. You're freakishly good to newer players, but too weak to care about for semi-pros and pros.
Indeed so. I think online chess the grades are a little over 100 elo heavy.
I certainly could not beat chess.com 1900 blitz anymore I cannot think fast enough at my age I need 3 minutes a move not 3 minutes a game.
Depends on your location (country you are in)
For example in Russia any one under 2300 is pretty much a noob
and here I am at 660 ( getting near 700 on a good day_)l, I don't think age, as Rat1960 suggests, is key, but knowing (understanding) so many variations you don't have to think
.Old lawyers who argue before the Supreme Court can still beat the younger ones - they may not think as fast, but they can prepare equally well . .
Whom am I to say, at my embarrsedly low rating , welll below the mean. Of course I only restarted playing chess in October after a 30 year absence, and still have not quite place a piece on the board given a number and letter . .
Dec 19, 2019
0
#8
Rat1960 wrote:
deaf_blue_bottles wrote:
Somewhere around 1800 to master is an annoying middleground. You're freakishly good to newer players, but too weak to care about for semi-pros and pros.
Indeed so. I think online chess the grades are a little over 100 elo heavy.
I certainly could not beat chess.com 1900 blitz anymore I cannot think fast enough at my age I need 3 minutes a move not 3 minutes a game.
I know two people that are older than you and can run my clock out a lot. I don't think age is much as a factor as most people think.
Dec 20, 2019
0
#9
Dynamic_Beast escribió:
deaf_blue_bottles wrote:
There's nothing magic at 2000 that makes the work "increase exponentially" (your words) other than the very common bias you and many players share, the same bias which I pointed out.
If you want to talk statistics, fine. Statistically your statement that they can probably gain 100 is incorrect because 1900 is already above average.
Jeez, talking to people like this is annoying. It's like you're too stupid to realize you're stupid, so you come back with more garbage posts. Try reading my posts while keeping your mouth shut and you might learn something.
My statement is not incorrect. It would have been incorrect based on statistics if I had said it is more probable than not to gain 100 but I did not said that and probably does not mean that. If you had to use probably would you say that because 1900 is above average you are probably not goingt to reach above that and is this a reality you really believe in? Statistically no one stands a better chance at making it to the 2000s than the 1900 dont you think? Or would you say that the 1800 or the 1700 are more likely to reach the 2000 while the 1900 remains stuck at the 1900s? As a 2000 player yourself you are neither qualified enough to comment on the work needed to get above that level nor you are in a position to call me stupid nor teach me anything about chess.
And they said being good at chess meant you are smart and I'm very sure there are people who are more likely to reach 2000 than others, last note, the last part of your post is an argument from authority fallacy, sadly, chess doesn't teach you that does it?
Dec 20, 2019
0
#10
Dynamic_Beast escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
Dynamic_Beast escribió:
deaf_blue_bottles wrote:
There's nothing magic at 2000 that makes the work "increase exponentially" (your words) other than the very common bias you and many players share, the same bias which I pointed out.
If you want to talk statistics, fine. Statistically your statement that they can probably gain 100 is incorrect because 1900 is already above average.
Jeez, talking to people like this is annoying. It's like you're too stupid to realize you're stupid, so you come back with more garbage posts. Try reading my posts while keeping your mouth shut and you might learn something.
My statement is not incorrect. It would have been incorrect based on statistics if I had said it is more probable than not to gain 100 but I did not said that and probably does not mean that. If you had to use probably would you say that because 1900 is above average you are probably not goingt to reach above that and is this a reality you really believe in? Statistically no one stands a better chance at making it to the 2000s than the 1900 dont you think? Or would you say that the 1800 or the 1700 are more likely to reach the 2000 while the 1900 remains stuck at the 1900s? As a 2000 player yourself you are neither qualified enough to comment on the work needed to get above that level nor you are in a position to call me stupid nor teach me anything about chess.
And they said being good at chess meant you are smart and I'm very sure there are people who are more likely to reach 2000 than others, last note, the last part of your post is an argument from authority fallacy, sadly, chess doesn't teach you that does it?
The last part of my post isn't an argument at all. It is a statement of fact and an appropriate response to someone inventing claims I have made and trying to refute his own inventions and calling me stupid on top of that.
Actually, it is a fallacy, it was just a segment claiming you were right and he was wrong merely by an elo gap and not by any other logical reason, it's a textbook example of an argument from authority, for example:
"nor you are in a position to call me stupid nor teach me anything about chess. "
That's false as hell especially given the ~100 elo gap between you and deaf_blue_bottles.
Dec 20, 2019
0
#11
the guy who runs hanging pawns youtube is 1900 and roughly that in blitz too, so you could always see his channel where he talks extensively about his plans and thoughts.
Dec 20, 2019
0
#12
Dynamic_Beast escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
And they said being good at chess meant you are smart and I'm very sure there are people who are more likely to reach 2000 than others, last note, the last part of your post is an argument from authority fallacy, sadly, chess doesn't teach you that does it?
The last part of my post isn't an argument at all. It is a statement of fact and an appropriate response to someone inventing claims I have made and trying to refute his own inventions and calling me stupid on top of that.
Actually, it is a fallacy, it was just a segment claiming you were right and he was wrong merely by an elo gap and not by any other logical reason, it's a textbook example of an argument from authority, for example:
"nor you are in a position to call me stupid nor teach me anything about chess. "
That's false as hell especially given the ~100 elo gap between you and deaf_blue_bottles.
Surely you could have at least used a calculator before posting that. If you have not noticed the OP was asking about blitz rating- my blitz rating is 2226, the person that called me stupid`s rating is 2039 so that is 187 points (quite close to 200 actually).
If you think it is an argument from authority you are entitled to your opinion. In my opinion this is not more an argument of authority than it is when someone in the same weight class bench pressing 200kgs tells someone benching 150kgs trying to tell them how to lift they have no business doing so. Also I don`t suppose however that you as 1600 player follow too many 1400 players because you think they can teach you something about chess. What I mean is that if you believe that you can actually learn from people 200 points or lower you need to put your money where your mouth is and start doing so.
I however beg to differ and that is why I don`t go around telling 2400 players they are stupid or that they should shut their mouth and learn from me because quite frankly that would be preposterous as it would be if a 1400 player did that to you. The point you seem to be avoiding is that if people 200 lower rated than someone else were in a position to tell those 200 points above stupid and try to teach them chess they would already be at their level and they are not and that is not based on authority but actual skill and achievement. Hence I would really think twice before telling a 2400+ player they are stupid and that if they shut their mouth they would learn from me.
I was calculating based on the best elo each of you have not on blitz so yes I know how to use calculators thanks.
On the rest of your post, no it's not an opinion, you did use an argument from authority, hell, I even pointed out a factual mistake you arrived at because of it! A 1400 can most certainly know more about chess in certain regards than I do, he may have a better tactical eye, better theory knowledge or just be really well at the endgame. You should already realize chess has many skills and areas of improvement and you can't be perfect at all of them, hence, lower rated players can still teach you about their "expertise" and yes, you are acting stupid given I need to tell you all of this.
| 2200 | CM |
| 2300 | FM |
| 2400 | IM |
| 2500 | GM |
| 2700 | SGM (47) |
These are over the board grades.
Pretty sure Robert Fischer went from 1700 to 2500 between 13 and 15 years old.
Dec 20, 2019
0
#14
shemayisroel wrote:
how good is 1900 blitz
It should be around as good as 1900 blitz.
Or just tell us what you want to hear and we'll say it.
Dec 20, 2019
0
#16
Dynamic_Beast escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
Dynamic_Beast escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
And they said being good at chess meant you are smart and I'm very sure there are people who are more likely to reach 2000 than others, last note, the last part of your post is an argument from authority fallacy, sadly, chess doesn't teach you that does it?
The last part of my post isn't an argument at all. It is a statement of fact and an appropriate response to someone inventing claims I have made and trying to refute his own inventions and calling me stupid on top of that.
Actually, it is a fallacy, it was just a segment claiming you were right and he was wrong merely by an elo gap and not by any other logical reason, it's a textbook example of an argument from authority, for example:
"nor you are in a position to call me stupid nor teach me anything about chess. "
That's false as hell especially given the ~100 elo gap between you and deaf_blue_bottles.
Surely you could have at least used a calculator before posting that. If you have not noticed the OP was asking about blitz rating- my blitz rating is 2226, the person that called me stupid`s rating is 2039 so that is 187 points (quite close to 200 actually).
If you think it is an argument from authority you are entitled to your opinion. In my opinion this is not more an argument of authority than it is when someone in the same weight class bench pressing 200kgs tells someone benching 150kgs trying to tell them how to lift they have no business doing so. Also I don`t suppose however that you as 1600 player follow too many 1400 players because you think they can teach you something about chess. What I mean is that if you believe that you can actually learn from people 200 points or lower you need to put your money where your mouth is and start doing so.
I however beg to differ and that is why I don`t go around telling 2400 players they are stupid or that they should shut their mouth and learn from me because quite frankly that would be preposterous as it would be if a 1400 player did that to you. The point you seem to be avoiding is that if people 200 lower rated than someone else were in a position to tell those 200 points above stupid and try to teach them chess they would already be at their level and they are not and that is not based on authority but actual skill and achievement. Hence I would really think twice before telling a 2400+ player they are stupid and that if they shut their mouth they would learn from me.
I was calculating based on the best elo each of you have not on blitz so yes I know how to use calculators thanks.
On the rest of your post, no it's not an opinion, you did use an argument from authority, hell, I even pointed out a factual mistake you arrived at because of it! A 1400 can most certainly know more about chess in certain regards than I do, he may have a better tactical eye, better theory knowledge or just be really well at the endgame. You should already realize chess has many skills and areas of improvement and you can't be perfect at all of them, hence, lower rated players can still teach you about their "expertise" and yes, you are acting stupid given I need to tell you all of this.
Calculating his best bullet vs my best blitz is not very productive given the title of the topic is about blitz and I have played 10 bullet games. I am glad you have pointed this inaccuracy.
Calculating online differences is not productive from the get go so you started with the left foot.
"Once again no argument from authority has been made- only a statement of fact based on skill and achievement- and I say this as humbly as i can as I do realise there are much stronger players out there"
And once again, you said something completely false.
"I can only wish you Good luck learning from all those 200 lower rated opponents. I am afraid to say however that this approach you are so zealously defending has not gotten you that far. Perhaps you should try learning mainly from 1800 players instead."
That's not how I got here lol but good try in twisting my words.
Dec 21, 2019
0
#17
Dynamic_Beast escribió:
"That's not how I got here" - Amen brother - That is what I have been saying the whole time.
Not really but at this point it's clear you don't even keep track of what you say.
Dec 21, 2019
0
#18
Just shut up and be yourselves already! That's always the answer! Just be yourself! That's all anyone can do anymore!
a little better than an 1800 player, but not quite as good as a 2000.
Dec 21, 2019
0
#20
Dynamic_Beast escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
Oh yes I do. Go back a bit - it is in post 31 in the middle: "I don't suppose you follow too many 1400" etc.
Dynamic_Beast escribió:
"That's not how I got here" - Amen brother - That is what I have been saying the whole time.
Not really but at this point it's clear you don't even keep track of what you say.
"I can only wish you Good luck learning from all those 200 lower rated opponents. I am afraid to say however that this approach you are so zealously defending has not gotten you that far."
Yep, sounds like dementia to me.
how good is 1900 blitz