Forums

How long does it take you to reach 2000?

Sort:
TS_theWoodiest
AngryPuffer wrote:
TS_theWoodiest wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
 

pretty much every annotation you wrote proves you're 1600-1700.

For one, the Alapin Sicilian is one of the most respected anti Sicilians there are and has been played by top level players in must win situations. The "worse IQP" is the main line. 7.a3 is a typical idea to allow the bishop to develop to d3 without being vulnerable to Nb4 jumps. 11. Nxd5 isn't a bad move either, the idea is to be able to develop to f4 with the dark squared bishop. If you don't take the knight black will play ...Nf6 and you suddenly have a lot of pressure on your d4 pawn which is also a typical idea in IQP structures for the blockading side to remove the blockade to apply pressure. Trading the blockading piece, especially if it is a knight, in order to put a worse blockader is a normal and logical idea. The queen is typically the worst blockader. Ne4 seems like a senseless move as you don't want the knight to be on e4 blocking the e file. You most of the time want to either leave the knight on c3 and keep the tension or trade because control of the square in front of the pawn is often critical. If you can see a situation where white has queen on d3, rook on d1 and the knight still on c3, black will have a tough time removing the blockade to apply pressure to the pawn without allowing white to play d5 and trade off the IQP. If the idea to transfer the knight over to the kingside seems promising, then the typical route is through e2 because that gives the flexibility of going to g3 or f4 and it doesn't block both the b1-h7 diagonal and the e file simultaneously. There can be situations where going through e4 is good, like if there are dark square holes, specifically on f6 and d6, but here the knight on e4 has no real prospects.

The real mistake was the combination of putting the bishop on e3 which is passive and blocks the e file (Bf4 was possible because the d4 pawn is defended tactically) combined with the fact that the Bb1 and Qd3 plan was flawed even though it is often a typical idea in such positions. Here, it's just too slow and doesn't really achieve anything.

Even with all of that, it isn't like white is losing. There is nothing really here to show that white is not 2000 strength. The game up to this point could have been played by 1500s up to above 2000 strength players.

shorten this up please

If you want the short version just read the first line. You don't know what you're talking about, and you proved it. We now have irrefutable proof that you're a bozo.

AngryPuffer
TS_theWoodiest wrote:

We now have irrefutable proof that you're a bozo.

Im just entertaining myself by arguing here :laugh:

TS_theWoodiest
AngryPuffer wrote:
TS_theWoodiest wrote:

We now have irrefutable proof that you're a bozo.

Im just entertaining myself by arguing here :laugh:

Exactly, because all you can do is pretend.

AngryPuffer
TS_theWoodiest wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
TS_theWoodiest wrote:

We now have irrefutable proof that you're a bozo.

Im just entertaining myself by arguing here :laugh:

Exactly, because all you can do is pretend.

if you want the truth, then i will tell you.

darlihysa

People who jump fast the 1800 barrier usually never surpass the 2400 limit!! It is strange but true the fact that 2400 chess is very different from 2000 chess

Regalbeginning

The same ol puffer. Nothing has changed

Regalbeginning

#214 I don't think you have enough Statistics to back that up

AngryPuffer

My old account... @Sea_TurtIe got to about 1900 and you can look at the games and how they went.

i took a long break so i am not of that exact level anymore, but if you want to bicker more then you are welcome to.

milkychai
JaskeII wrote:

It depends, If you are just starting, I would say at least 5-7+ years. If you already have some experience (1500-1800) I would say 2-3+ years.

aint no way

if youre already 1500-1800 it would take you about a month to get 2000

Rating is always behind your level

JUst study more than you play and at the end play more than you study ; )

TS_theWoodiest
AngryPuffer wrote:

My old account... @Sea_TurtIe got to about 1900 and you can look at the games and how they went.

i took a long break so i am not of that exact level anymore, but if you want to bicker more then you are welcome to.

A short peak of 1870 is not really that close to 2000. Especially when you couldn't maintain that rating. If this was supposed to be your big reveal that proves you're 2000 strength it really did the opposite.

AngryPuffer
TS_theWoodiest wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:

My old account... @Sea_TurtIe got to about 1900 and you can look at the games and how they went.

i took a long break so i am not of that exact level anymore, but if you want to bicker more then you are welcome to.

A short peak of 1870 is not really that close to 2000. Especially when you couldn't maintain that rating. If this was supposed to be your big reveal that proves you're 2000 strength it really did the opposite.

yet i was able to consistently beat 2000s

TS_theWoodiest
AngryPuffer wrote:
TS_theWoodiest wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:

My old account... @Sea_TurtIe got to about 1900 and you can look at the games and how they went.

i took a long break so i am not of that exact level anymore, but if you want to bicker more then you are welcome to.

A short peak of 1870 is not really that close to 2000. Especially when you couldn't maintain that rating. If this was supposed to be your big reveal that proves you're 2000 strength it really did the opposite.

yet i was able to consistently beat 2000s

24 wins and 11 draws out of 74 games is probably pretty close to the expected win rate of a 1700-1800 player vs 2000 rated competition. Again, you were rated properly cos you know, that's kind of how a rating works. If you could "consistently beat 2000s" you'd not only be 2000, but you'd probably be 2100-2200.

anonymous_training1

@AngryPuffer Let it go dude. Me I got back from a long break too. Two year break. I want to see you become 1800.

anonymous_training1

@TS_theWoodiest Stop arguing with him. His real rating is 875 rapid. SamuelAjedrez95 account is the evidence.

AngryPuffer
TS_theWoodiest wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:
TS_theWoodiest wrote:
AngryPuffer wrote:

My old account... @Sea_TurtIe got to about 1900 and you can look at the games and how they went.

i took a long break so i am not of that exact level anymore, but if you want to bicker more then you are welcome to.

A short peak of 1870 is not really that close to 2000. Especially when you couldn't maintain that rating. If this was supposed to be your big reveal that proves you're 2000 strength it really did the opposite.

yet i was able to consistently beat 2000s

24 wins and 11 draws out of 74 games is probably pretty close to the expected win rate of a 1700-1800 player vs 2000 rated competition. Again, you were rated properly cos you know, that's kind of how a rating works. If you could "consistently beat 2000s" you'd not only be 2000, but you'd probably be 2100-2200.

according to whos games?

blueemu
TS_theWoodiest wrote:

24 wins and 11 draws out of 74 games is probably pretty close to the expected win rate of a 1700-1800 player vs 2000 rated competition.

A 200-point rating gap equates to 3-to-1 odds or a 75-25 split in results.

That would be 14 wins and 9 draws out of 74 games.

There is a clear excess of more than 10 wins over expectations, assuming 1800 vs 2000 rating.

If it was 1750 vs 2050, the excess is even greater.

AngryPuffer

my friend @gunnersroadto1000 i played a lot, for every 10 games he won 5 drew 1-2 and lost 3-4

so i doubt his "statistics" are correct

anonymous_training1

@AngryPuffer says he owns "SamuelAjedrez95" account. That says it all. Pretending and argument closed.

TS_theWoodiest
AngryPuffer wrote:

my friend @gunnersroadto1000 i played a lot, for every 10 games he won 5 drew 1-2 and lost 3-4

so i doubt his "statistics" are correct

My "statistics" are easy to lookup. I went to that account, to rapid games and sorted by a minimum rating of 2000.

TS_theWoodiest
blueemu wrote:
TS_theWoodiest wrote:

24 wins and 11 draws out of 74 games is probably pretty close to the expected win rate of a 1700-1800 player vs 2000 rated competition.

A 200-point rating gap equates to 3-to-1 odds or a 75-25 split in results.

That would be 14 wins and 9 draws out of 74 games.

There is a clear excess of more than 10 wins over expectations, assuming 1800 vs 2000 rating.

If it was 1750 vs 2050, the excess is even greater.

I trust your info, but I suspect that is based on the traditional FIDE Elo system, not the system that chess.com uses. Also, his peak rating was 1870 so it would make sense that he performed a bit higher than an 1800 during his rise to that rating if the win probabilities are similar between the two rating systems.