... on lichess where im 2050 rated. ... i never get the london system, compare that to chess.com where the london system lingers even past 2000 ...
I don't play too much on Lichess, but the London hangs around in higher levels there, too.
I get it 15% of the time (once every 6 or 7 games).
Average rating of my opponents on Lichess who like the London: 2216 ...
maybe go back and read past comments little man
"compare that to chess.com where the london system lingers even past 2000"
This is the only relevant quote where you claim that the London System lingers past 2000 on this site which is false on account of the fact that you've never sniffed 2000 and that you've never even played against a proper London System on this site.
this is not my first chess.com account
And? Out of hundreds of games the fact remains that you have never played against a London System proper on this account, why should that be any different on any other account? Even if you have played against the London on other accounts it is likely to be well under 1% of your games.
The other fact remains that you are not good enough to be 2000 based on your actual play. The first step to improving is to remove your ego. You are not a 2000 strength player on chess.com rapid and never will be by simply pretending that you are. You will actually have to put the work in to get better.
i dont play on chess.com seriously, but i can go over my lichess games.
many of the bullet games continue with Qc2 Bf5 Qc1 Cxd4. while in more rapid/classical games i have not reached that exact position yet
Ah yes, the classic excuse. "I wasn't playing seriously". You can continue to say what you want but a 2000 rated player not playing seriously is still a tier above you playing your best.
i can play and beat you. how about i prove my skill? maybe we should set up a few rapid games
You're going down the old, tired road. There is no incentive for me to play. I prove nothing by beating a 1500. It would be like me trying to beat a titled player.
The way you could prove it is easy. Just get to 2000. If you can get to even 1900 rating, I will play a match against you.
I'll put it this way, you make guys like me feel bad about our lack of progress. Keep it up, dude. 👍🙏
... on lichess where im 2050 rated. ... i never get the london system, compare that to chess.com where the london system lingers even past 2000 ...
I don't play too much on Lichess, but the London hangs around in higher levels there, too.
I get it 15% of the time (once every 6 or 7 games).
Average rating of my opponents on Lichess who like the London: 2216 ...
i havent for awhile. ive mostly seen c4 or nf3, but that just might be luck
maybe go back and read past comments little man
"compare that to chess.com where the london system lingers even past 2000"
This is the only relevant quote where you claim that the London System lingers past 2000 on this site which is false on account of the fact that you've never sniffed 2000 and that you've never even played against a proper London System on this site.
this is not my first chess.com account
And? Out of hundreds of games the fact remains that you have never played against a London System proper on this account, why should that be any different on any other account? Even if you have played against the London on other accounts it is likely to be well under 1% of your games.
The other fact remains that you are not good enough to be 2000 based on your actual play. The first step to improving is to remove your ego. You are not a 2000 strength player on chess.com rapid and never will be by simply pretending that you are. You will actually have to put the work in to get better.
i dont play on chess.com seriously, but i can go over my lichess games.
many of the bullet games continue with Qc2 Bf5 Qc1 Cxd4. while in more rapid/classical games i have not reached that exact position yet
Ah yes, the classic excuse. "I wasn't playing seriously". You can continue to say what you want but a 2000 rated player not playing seriously is still a tier above you playing your best.
i can play and beat you. how about i prove my skill? maybe we should set up a few rapid games
You're going down the old, tired road. There is no incentive for me to play. I prove nothing by beating a 1500. It would be like me trying to beat a titled player.
The way you could prove it is easy. Just get to 2000. If you can get to even 1900 rating, I will play a match against you.
if i get another pyramid system player or italian system player here, it will genuenly break me
A player is not illegitimate if they play a system, unless you consider Eric Rosen, Hikaru Nakamura, Magnus Carlsen, and plenty of other titled players to be illegitimate. I'm not sure why Lichess using a different rating system would change at the 2000 level, it's still the same and different system.
I would like to point out your reply to my comment, specifically some elements of it. First, good for you that you got outplayed on Lichess instead of chess.com, but that doesn't change the rating system, no? Second, you claim that everything below 2000 is a joke on Lichess, then later state that any player to break 2000 worked hard and is very skilled. How does that make any sense if all their games were played with bad gambiteers? And that still has nothing to do with their rating system, so I don't see your point (I'm 2300 by the way, does that mean I'm as a good as an NM on here?)
You also say you have another chess.com account, and I don't doubt you do. However, what is that accounts name, even if you closed it I could check the stats you keep referring to. Also, for an account that has several hundred games, it's surprising to me you would still be at 1600 if you were a 2000 on your other account. Or am I mistaken, is that not what you meant?
I don't mean to bash you or anyone who is below x rating, and 1600 is extremely respectable. We all have our different journeys that have their own end goals, and it's different for how long it takes and the learning regiment and talent of the player. I simply started this conversation because you claimed it was easy to get to 2000, but you haven't reached that yet and you were stating what I believe to be a common misconception.
I mean to address @AngryPuffer
A player is not illegitimate if they play a system, unless you consider Eric Rosen, Hikaru Nakamura, Magnus Carlsen, and plenty of other titled players to be illegitimate. I'm not sure why Lichess using a different rating system would change at the 2000 level, it's still the same and different system.
I would like to point out your reply to my comment, specifically some elements of it. First, good for you that you got outplayed on Lichess instead of chess.com, but that doesn't change the rating system, no? Second, you claim that everything below 2000 is a joke on Lichess, then later state that any player to break 2000 worked hard and is very skilled. How does that make any sense if all their games were played with bad gambiteers? And that still has nothing to do with their rating system, so I don't see your point (I'm 2300 by the way, does that mean I'm as a good as an NM on here?)
You also say you have another chess.com account, and I don't doubt you do. However, what is that accounts name, even if you closed it I could check the stats you keep referring to. Also, for an account that has several hundred games, it's surprising to me you would still be at 1600 if you were a 2000 on your other account. Or am I mistaken, is that not what you meant?
I don't mean to bash you or anyone who is below x rating, and 1600 is extremely respectable. We all have our different journeys that have their own end goals, and it's different for how long it takes and the learning regiment and talent of the player. I simply started this conversation because you claimed it was easy to get to 2000, but you haven't reached that yet and you were stating what I believe to be a common misconception.
I mean to address @AngryPuffer
You don't have to be this nice. There is nothing wrong with having any rating at chess. However, when you trod on the hard work of other people, minimizing what they have accomplished by saying that you'd have to essentially be mentally handicapped to not be able to reach 2000 in a few months, that is an entirely different issue. Especially when said person is pretending to have attained that level of ability themself with no proof to back it up other than a rating on a different site that has a different rating system and a different pool of players. AngryPuffer isn't only crapping on the hard work of everyone who has ever attempted to improve to 2000, whether they made it or not, they are crapping on their own work that it took to get to their current level. It takes a different level of ego to engage in that kind of mental gymnastics.
A player is not illegitimate if they play a system, unless you consider Eric Rosen, Hikaru Nakamura, Magnus Carlsen, and plenty of other titled players to be illegitimate. I'm not sure why Lichess using a different rating system would change at the 2000 level, it's still the same and different system.
I would like to point out your reply to my comment, specifically some elements of it. First, good for you that you got outplayed on Lichess instead of chess.com, but that doesn't change the rating system, no? Second, you claim that everything below 2000 is a joke on Lichess, then later state that any player to break 2000 worked hard and is very skilled. How does that make any sense if all their games were played with bad gambiteers? And that still has nothing to do with their rating system, so I don't see your point (I'm 2300 by the way, does that mean I'm as a good as an NM on here?)
You also say you have another chess.com account, and I don't doubt you do. However, what is that accounts name, even if you closed it I could check the stats you keep referring to. Also, for an account that has several hundred games, it's surprising to me you would still be at 1600 if you were a 2000 on your other account. Or am I mistaken, is that not what you meant?
I don't mean to bash you or anyone who is below x rating, and 1600 is extremely respectable. We all have our different journeys that have their own end goals, and it's different for how long it takes and the learning regiment and talent of the player. I simply started this conversation because you claimed it was easy to get to 2000, but you haven't reached that yet and you were stating what I believe to be a common misconception.
I mean to address @AngryPuffer
the people arent challenging in the way of ¨outplaying¨ you or ¨being better¨ on lichess and chess.com. they just play in a strange way that you dont see normally otb or in a chess club. You deserve to be over 2000 lichess if you can beat their poor opening play or weird way of playing after.
A player is not illegitimate if they play a system, unless you consider Eric Rosen, Hikaru Nakamura, Magnus Carlsen, and plenty of other titled players to be illegitimate. I'm not sure why Lichess using a different rating system would change at the 2000 level, it's still the same and different system.
I would like to point out your reply to my comment, specifically some elements of it. First, good for you that you got outplayed on Lichess instead of chess.com, but that doesn't change the rating system, no? Second, you claim that everything below 2000 is a joke on Lichess, then later state that any player to break 2000 worked hard and is very skilled. How does that make any sense if all their games were played with bad gambiteers? And that still has nothing to do with their rating system, so I don't see your point (I'm 2300 by the way, does that mean I'm as a good as an NM on here?)
You also say you have another chess.com account, and I don't doubt you do. However, what is that accounts name, even if you closed it I could check the stats you keep referring to. Also, for an account that has several hundred games, it's surprising to me you would still be at 1600 if you were a 2000 on your other account. Or am I mistaken, is that not what you meant?
I don't mean to bash you or anyone who is below x rating, and 1600 is extremely respectable. We all have our different journeys that have their own end goals, and it's different for how long it takes and the learning regiment and talent of the player. I simply started this conversation because you claimed it was easy to get to 2000, but you haven't reached that yet and you were stating what I believe to be a common misconception.
I mean to address @AngryPuffer
You don't have to be this nice. There is nothing wrong with having any rating at chess. However, when you trod on the hard work of other people, minimizing what they have accomplished by saying that you'd have to essentially be mentally handicapped to not be able to reach 2000 in a few months, that is an entirely different issue. Especially when said person is pretending to have attained that level of ability themself with no proof to back it up other than a rating on a different site that has a different rating system and a different pool of players. AngryPuffer isn't only crapping on the hard work of everyone who has ever attempted to improve to 2000, whether they made it or not, they are crapping on their own work that it took to get to their current level. It takes a different level of ego to engage in that kind of mental gymnastics.
While I do agree with you on most everything in this post, I disagree with your comment about being "too nice" per say. No offense, but you didn't get anywhere in your discussion with him except say that you would beat him in a rapid game and vice versa, I'm actually trying to discuss with him. I appreciate your comment though, everything else echoes what I'm referring to.
A player is not illegitimate if they play a system, unless you consider Eric Rosen, Hikaru Nakamura, Magnus Carlsen, and plenty of other titled players to be illegitimate. I'm not sure why Lichess using a different rating system would change at the 2000 level, it's still the same and different system.
I would like to point out your reply to my comment, specifically some elements of it. First, good for you that you got outplayed on Lichess instead of chess.com, but that doesn't change the rating system, no? Second, you claim that everything below 2000 is a joke on Lichess, then later state that any player to break 2000 worked hard and is very skilled. How does that make any sense if all their games were played with bad gambiteers? And that still has nothing to do with their rating system, so I don't see your point (I'm 2300 by the way, does that mean I'm as a good as an NM on here?)
You also say you have another chess.com account, and I don't doubt you do. However, what is that accounts name, even if you closed it I could check the stats you keep referring to. Also, for an account that has several hundred games, it's surprising to me you would still be at 1600 if you were a 2000 on your other account. Or am I mistaken, is that not what you meant?
I don't mean to bash you or anyone who is below x rating, and 1600 is extremely respectable. We all have our different journeys that have their own end goals, and it's different for how long it takes and the learning regiment and talent of the player. I simply started this conversation because you claimed it was easy to get to 2000, but you haven't reached that yet and you were stating what I believe to be a common misconception.
I mean to address @AngryPuffer
the people arent challenging in the way of ¨outplaying¨ you or ¨being better¨ on lichess and chess.com. they just play in a strange way that you dont see normally otb or in a chess club. You deserve to be over 2000 lichess if you can beat their poor opening play or weird way of playing after.
That's what I'm saying, being 2000 on Lichess is not equivalent to Chess.com, and that's where I think your misconception about the effort and time that is needed comes in.
A player is not illegitimate if they play a system, unless you consider Eric Rosen, Hikaru Nakamura, Magnus Carlsen, and plenty of other titled players to be illegitimate. I'm not sure why Lichess using a different rating system would change at the 2000 level, it's still the same and different system.
I would like to point out your reply to my comment, specifically some elements of it. First, good for you that you got outplayed on Lichess instead of chess.com, but that doesn't change the rating system, no? Second, you claim that everything below 2000 is a joke on Lichess, then later state that any player to break 2000 worked hard and is very skilled. How does that make any sense if all their games were played with bad gambiteers? And that still has nothing to do with their rating system, so I don't see your point (I'm 2300 by the way, does that mean I'm as a good as an NM on here?)
You also say you have another chess.com account, and I don't doubt you do. However, what is that accounts name, even if you closed it I could check the stats you keep referring to. Also, for an account that has several hundred games, it's surprising to me you would still be at 1600 if you were a 2000 on your other account. Or am I mistaken, is that not what you meant?
I don't mean to bash you or anyone who is below x rating, and 1600 is extremely respectable. We all have our different journeys that have their own end goals, and it's different for how long it takes and the learning regiment and talent of the player. I simply started this conversation because you claimed it was easy to get to 2000, but you haven't reached that yet and you were stating what I believe to be a common misconception.
I mean to address @AngryPuffer
You don't have to be this nice. There is nothing wrong with having any rating at chess. However, when you trod on the hard work of other people, minimizing what they have accomplished by saying that you'd have to essentially be mentally handicapped to not be able to reach 2000 in a few months, that is an entirely different issue. Especially when said person is pretending to have attained that level of ability themself with no proof to back it up other than a rating on a different site that has a different rating system and a different pool of players. AngryPuffer isn't only crapping on the hard work of everyone who has ever attempted to improve to 2000, whether they made it or not, they are crapping on their own work that it took to get to their current level. It takes a different level of ego to engage in that kind of mental gymnastics.
what im trying to say is that anyone can reach 2000 pretty easily if they just put some time into it. learn your openings, develop your pieces, understand common tactics and plans in your opening, learn how to make a plan, know tactics, know endgames. that gets you to 1900-2100
A player is not illegitimate if they play a system, unless you consider Eric Rosen, Hikaru Nakamura, Magnus Carlsen, and plenty of other titled players to be illegitimate. I'm not sure why Lichess using a different rating system would change at the 2000 level, it's still the same and different system.
I would like to point out your reply to my comment, specifically some elements of it. First, good for you that you got outplayed on Lichess instead of chess.com, but that doesn't change the rating system, no? Second, you claim that everything below 2000 is a joke on Lichess, then later state that any player to break 2000 worked hard and is very skilled. How does that make any sense if all their games were played with bad gambiteers? And that still has nothing to do with their rating system, so I don't see your point (I'm 2300 by the way, does that mean I'm as a good as an NM on here?)
You also say you have another chess.com account, and I don't doubt you do. However, what is that accounts name, even if you closed it I could check the stats you keep referring to. Also, for an account that has several hundred games, it's surprising to me you would still be at 1600 if you were a 2000 on your other account. Or am I mistaken, is that not what you meant?
I don't mean to bash you or anyone who is below x rating, and 1600 is extremely respectable. We all have our different journeys that have their own end goals, and it's different for how long it takes and the learning regiment and talent of the player. I simply started this conversation because you claimed it was easy to get to 2000, but you haven't reached that yet and you were stating what I believe to be a common misconception.
I mean to address @AngryPuffer
the people arent challenging in the way of ¨outplaying¨ you or ¨being better¨ on lichess and chess.com. they just play in a strange way that you dont see normally otb or in a chess club. You deserve to be over 2000 lichess if you can beat their poor opening play or weird way of playing after.
That's what I'm saying, being 2000 on Lichess is not equivalent to Chess.com, and that's where I think your misconception about the effort and time that is needed comes in.
I also decided to play some rapid here. The pool of players that im at play poorly in the opening and makes obvious opening mistakes but do well in finding ways to draw endgames (part of it is that ive never really studied endgames)
i heard that there is a new “bm” title, apparently it stands for “blunder master”. sounds like its for me lol
A player is not illegitimate if they play a system, unless you consider Eric Rosen, Hikaru Nakamura, Magnus Carlsen, and plenty of other titled players to be illegitimate. I'm not sure why Lichess using a different rating system would change at the 2000 level, it's still the same and different system.
I would like to point out your reply to my comment, specifically some elements of it. First, good for you that you got outplayed on Lichess instead of chess.com, but that doesn't change the rating system, no? Second, you claim that everything below 2000 is a joke on Lichess, then later state that any player to break 2000 worked hard and is very skilled. How does that make any sense if all their games were played with bad gambiteers? And that still has nothing to do with their rating system, so I don't see your point (I'm 2300 by the way, does that mean I'm as a good as an NM on here?)
You also say you have another chess.com account, and I don't doubt you do. However, what is that accounts name, even if you closed it I could check the stats you keep referring to. Also, for an account that has several hundred games, it's surprising to me you would still be at 1600 if you were a 2000 on your other account. Or am I mistaken, is that not what you meant?
I don't mean to bash you or anyone who is below x rating, and 1600 is extremely respectable. We all have our different journeys that have their own end goals, and it's different for how long it takes and the learning regiment and talent of the player. I simply started this conversation because you claimed it was easy to get to 2000, but you haven't reached that yet and you were stating what I believe to be a common misconception.
I mean to address @AngryPuffer
You don't have to be this nice. There is nothing wrong with having any rating at chess. However, when you trod on the hard work of other people, minimizing what they have accomplished by saying that you'd have to essentially be mentally handicapped to not be able to reach 2000 in a few months, that is an entirely different issue. Especially when said person is pretending to have attained that level of ability themself with no proof to back it up other than a rating on a different site that has a different rating system and a different pool of players. AngryPuffer isn't only crapping on the hard work of everyone who has ever attempted to improve to 2000, whether they made it or not, they are crapping on their own work that it took to get to their current level. It takes a different level of ego to engage in that kind of mental gymnastics.
what im trying to say is that anyone can reach 2000 pretty easily if they just put some time into it. learn your openings, develop your pieces, understand common tactics and plans in your opening, learn how to make a plan, know tactics, know endgames. that gets you to 1900-2100
I understand what you're saying, and I'm arguing it's incorrect. What I'm asking you isn't what you believe to be true, which I might add you still haven't shown how you know, I'm asking you to respond to my comments about systems, different rating scale, etc. I've achieved 2000 Rapid on chess.com, and have decent ratings in other time controls and on other platforms. In my experience, 2000 is a lot more difficult than learning openings, doing some tactics, and not blundering. There's things that happen when you're learning, eureka moments where you start to understand a pattern positionally, you begin to make sense of what's actually going on strategically and mathematically, and you're calculation ability suddenly seems to become clearer.
These sudden changes didn't occur because you memorized moves, or hoped to survive with the occasional idea by not blundering. Most games aren't won by a pretty tactic you study, and while it's useful to work on them, that won't get you anywhere past seeing free pieces. I could go on, but I'm asking for your response to these and my other comments, not what you believe, as I feel you've said it enough.
A player is not illegitimate if they play a system, unless you consider Eric Rosen, Hikaru Nakamura, Magnus Carlsen, and plenty of other titled players to be illegitimate. I'm not sure why Lichess using a different rating system would change at the 2000 level, it's still the same and different system.
I would like to point out your reply to my comment, specifically some elements of it. First, good for you that you got outplayed on Lichess instead of chess.com, but that doesn't change the rating system, no? Second, you claim that everything below 2000 is a joke on Lichess, then later state that any player to break 2000 worked hard and is very skilled. How does that make any sense if all their games were played with bad gambiteers? And that still has nothing to do with their rating system, so I don't see your point (I'm 2300 by the way, does that mean I'm as a good as an NM on here?)
You also say you have another chess.com account, and I don't doubt you do. However, what is that accounts name, even if you closed it I could check the stats you keep referring to. Also, for an account that has several hundred games, it's surprising to me you would still be at 1600 if you were a 2000 on your other account. Or am I mistaken, is that not what you meant?
I don't mean to bash you or anyone who is below x rating, and 1600 is extremely respectable. We all have our different journeys that have their own end goals, and it's different for how long it takes and the learning regiment and talent of the player. I simply started this conversation because you claimed it was easy to get to 2000, but you haven't reached that yet and you were stating what I believe to be a common misconception.
I mean to address @AngryPuffer
You don't have to be this nice. There is nothing wrong with having any rating at chess. However, when you trod on the hard work of other people, minimizing what they have accomplished by saying that you'd have to essentially be mentally handicapped to not be able to reach 2000 in a few months, that is an entirely different issue. Especially when said person is pretending to have attained that level of ability themself with no proof to back it up other than a rating on a different site that has a different rating system and a different pool of players. AngryPuffer isn't only crapping on the hard work of everyone who has ever attempted to improve to 2000, whether they made it or not, they are crapping on their own work that it took to get to their current level. It takes a different level of ego to engage in that kind of mental gymnastics.
While I do agree with you on most everything in this post, I disagree with your comment about being "too nice" per say. No offense, but you didn't get anywhere in your discussion with him except say that you would beat him in a rapid game and vice versa, I'm actually trying to discuss with him. I appreciate your comment though, everything else echoes what I'm referring to.
It wasn't a discussion. I also never claimed I would beat them in a rapid game, I said I have nothing to prove by beating a 1500. If they aren't actually 1500 then I have even less incentive to play them and lose when they can prove their own strength by getting to the rating that matches their claimed strength. I understand what you are trying to accomplish but I think I did get somewhere anyway as they seem to have changed their tone quite a bit in their last few posts.
A player is not illegitimate if they play a system, unless you consider Eric Rosen, Hikaru Nakamura, Magnus Carlsen, and plenty of other titled players to be illegitimate. I'm not sure why Lichess using a different rating system would change at the 2000 level, it's still the same and different system.
I would like to point out your reply to my comment, specifically some elements of it. First, good for you that you got outplayed on Lichess instead of chess.com, but that doesn't change the rating system, no? Second, you claim that everything below 2000 is a joke on Lichess, then later state that any player to break 2000 worked hard and is very skilled. How does that make any sense if all their games were played with bad gambiteers? And that still has nothing to do with their rating system, so I don't see your point (I'm 2300 by the way, does that mean I'm as a good as an NM on here?)
You also say you have another chess.com account, and I don't doubt you do. However, what is that accounts name, even if you closed it I could check the stats you keep referring to. Also, for an account that has several hundred games, it's surprising to me you would still be at 1600 if you were a 2000 on your other account. Or am I mistaken, is that not what you meant?
I don't mean to bash you or anyone who is below x rating, and 1600 is extremely respectable. We all have our different journeys that have their own end goals, and it's different for how long it takes and the learning regiment and talent of the player. I simply started this conversation because you claimed it was easy to get to 2000, but you haven't reached that yet and you were stating what I believe to be a common misconception.
I mean to address @AngryPuffer
the people arent challenging in the way of ¨outplaying¨ you or ¨being better¨ on lichess and chess.com. they just play in a strange way that you dont see normally otb or in a chess club. You deserve to be over 2000 lichess if you can beat their poor opening play or weird way of playing after.
That's what I'm saying, being 2000 on Lichess is not equivalent to Chess.com, and that's where I think your misconception about the effort and time that is needed comes in.
I also decided to play some rapid here. The pool of players that im at play poorly in the opening and makes obvious opening mistakes but do well in finding ways to draw endgames (part of it is that ive never really studied endgames)
That's not a bad game, but it was a pretty typical 1600 game. There's a decent grasp of tactics, an okay but could be much better opening, but really a lack of strategical plans and importance, when an individual eventually falters. I would have won with white from the opening playing someone around 1800 below, not because I've studied it or it was played well, but because my understanding of positions and strategy would have led me to outplay them in that weakness, blunder or not.
I also see some text at the bottom much smaller, idk where that came from but it says you only converted 1 of 3. I would argue that's another thing that 2000's have figured out, and that is how to close out endgames or win with a 0.7 advantage. That's not something learned by tactics or openings.
A player is not illegitimate if they play a system, unless you consider Eric Rosen, Hikaru Nakamura, Magnus Carlsen, and plenty of other titled players to be illegitimate. I'm not sure why Lichess using a different rating system would change at the 2000 level, it's still the same and different system.
I would like to point out your reply to my comment, specifically some elements of it. First, good for you that you got outplayed on Lichess instead of chess.com, but that doesn't change the rating system, no? Second, you claim that everything below 2000 is a joke on Lichess, then later state that any player to break 2000 worked hard and is very skilled. How does that make any sense if all their games were played with bad gambiteers? And that still has nothing to do with their rating system, so I don't see your point (I'm 2300 by the way, does that mean I'm as a good as an NM on here?)
You also say you have another chess.com account, and I don't doubt you do. However, what is that accounts name, even if you closed it I could check the stats you keep referring to. Also, for an account that has several hundred games, it's surprising to me you would still be at 1600 if you were a 2000 on your other account. Or am I mistaken, is that not what you meant?
I don't mean to bash you or anyone who is below x rating, and 1600 is extremely respectable. We all have our different journeys that have their own end goals, and it's different for how long it takes and the learning regiment and talent of the player. I simply started this conversation because you claimed it was easy to get to 2000, but you haven't reached that yet and you were stating what I believe to be a common misconception.
I mean to address @AngryPuffer
You don't have to be this nice. There is nothing wrong with having any rating at chess. However, when you trod on the hard work of other people, minimizing what they have accomplished by saying that you'd have to essentially be mentally handicapped to not be able to reach 2000 in a few months, that is an entirely different issue. Especially when said person is pretending to have attained that level of ability themself with no proof to back it up other than a rating on a different site that has a different rating system and a different pool of players. AngryPuffer isn't only crapping on the hard work of everyone who has ever attempted to improve to 2000, whether they made it or not, they are crapping on their own work that it took to get to their current level. It takes a different level of ego to engage in that kind of mental gymnastics.
what im trying to say is that anyone can reach 2000 pretty easily if they just put some time into it. learn your openings, develop your pieces, understand common tactics and plans in your opening, learn how to make a plan, know tactics, know endgames. that gets you to 1900-2100
I understand what you're saying, and I'm arguing it's incorrect. What I'm asking you isn't what you believe to be true, which I might add you still haven't shown how you know, I'm asking you to respond to my comments about systems, different rating scale, etc. I've achieved 2000 Rapid on chess.com, and have decent ratings in other time controls and on other platforms. In my experience, 2000 is a lot more difficult than learning openings, doing some tactics, and not blundering. There's things that happen when you're learning, eureka moments where you start to understand a pattern positionally, you begin to make sense of what's actually going on strategically and mathematically, and you're calculation ability suddenly seems to become clearer.
These sudden changes didn't occur because you memorized moves, or hoped to survive with the occasional idea by not blundering. Most games aren't won by a pretty tactic you study, and while it's useful to work on them, that won't get you anywhere past seeing free pieces. I could go on, but I'm asking for your response to these and my other comments, not what you believe, as I feel you've said it enough.
when i say ¨learn tactics¨ what i mean is that you should first see all the tactics, then play puzzles and develop intuition and understanding of how they work and when they may appear.
when i say ¨learn plans¨ what i mean is that after you develop all your pieces you should know what to do. Looking at masters games in your opening of choice or similar position of a game you played can help with this alot.
these 2 things as well as other small things that ive already stated is what somebody needs to get to 2000. Does this answer your question? have i explained it enough? and if im wrong why am i wrong? maybe i just dont understand your question well enough.
A player is not illegitimate if they play a system, unless you consider Eric Rosen, Hikaru Nakamura, Magnus Carlsen, and plenty of other titled players to be illegitimate. I'm not sure why Lichess using a different rating system would change at the 2000 level, it's still the same and different system.
I would like to point out your reply to my comment, specifically some elements of it. First, good for you that you got outplayed on Lichess instead of chess.com, but that doesn't change the rating system, no? Second, you claim that everything below 2000 is a joke on Lichess, then later state that any player to break 2000 worked hard and is very skilled. How does that make any sense if all their games were played with bad gambiteers? And that still has nothing to do with their rating system, so I don't see your point (I'm 2300 by the way, does that mean I'm as a good as an NM on here?)
You also say you have another chess.com account, and I don't doubt you do. However, what is that accounts name, even if you closed it I could check the stats you keep referring to. Also, for an account that has several hundred games, it's surprising to me you would still be at 1600 if you were a 2000 on your other account. Or am I mistaken, is that not what you meant?
I don't mean to bash you or anyone who is below x rating, and 1600 is extremely respectable. We all have our different journeys that have their own end goals, and it's different for how long it takes and the learning regiment and talent of the player. I simply started this conversation because you claimed it was easy to get to 2000, but you haven't reached that yet and you were stating what I believe to be a common misconception.
I mean to address @AngryPuffer
You don't have to be this nice. There is nothing wrong with having any rating at chess. However, when you trod on the hard work of other people, minimizing what they have accomplished by saying that you'd have to essentially be mentally handicapped to not be able to reach 2000 in a few months, that is an entirely different issue. Especially when said person is pretending to have attained that level of ability themself with no proof to back it up other than a rating on a different site that has a different rating system and a different pool of players. AngryPuffer isn't only crapping on the hard work of everyone who has ever attempted to improve to 2000, whether they made it or not, they are crapping on their own work that it took to get to their current level. It takes a different level of ego to engage in that kind of mental gymnastics.
While I do agree with you on most everything in this post, I disagree with your comment about being "too nice" per say. No offense, but you didn't get anywhere in your discussion with him except say that you would beat him in a rapid game and vice versa, I'm actually trying to discuss with him. I appreciate your comment though, everything else echoes what I'm referring to.
It wasn't a discussion. I also never claimed I would beat them in a rapid game, I said I have nothing to prove by beating a 1500. If they aren't actually 1500 then I have even less incentive to play them and lose when they can prove their own strength by getting to the rating that matches their claimed strength. I understand what you are trying to accomplish but I think I did get somewhere anyway as they seem to have changed their tone quite a bit in their last few posts.
I'm sorry, that's what I meant. I didn't mean to offend, just simply state it didn't seem to go anywhere, and I don't prefer to be rude, I prefer to have a civilized discussion and come to an agreement.
A player is not illegitimate if they play a system, unless you consider Eric Rosen, Hikaru Nakamura, Magnus Carlsen, and plenty of other titled players to be illegitimate. I'm not sure why Lichess using a different rating system would change at the 2000 level, it's still the same and different system.
I would like to point out your reply to my comment, specifically some elements of it. First, good for you that you got outplayed on Lichess instead of chess.com, but that doesn't change the rating system, no? Second, you claim that everything below 2000 is a joke on Lichess, then later state that any player to break 2000 worked hard and is very skilled. How does that make any sense if all their games were played with bad gambiteers? And that still has nothing to do with their rating system, so I don't see your point (I'm 2300 by the way, does that mean I'm as a good as an NM on here?)
You also say you have another chess.com account, and I don't doubt you do. However, what is that accounts name, even if you closed it I could check the stats you keep referring to. Also, for an account that has several hundred games, it's surprising to me you would still be at 1600 if you were a 2000 on your other account. Or am I mistaken, is that not what you meant?
I don't mean to bash you or anyone who is below x rating, and 1600 is extremely respectable. We all have our different journeys that have their own end goals, and it's different for how long it takes and the learning regiment and talent of the player. I simply started this conversation because you claimed it was easy to get to 2000, but you haven't reached that yet and you were stating what I believe to be a common misconception.
I mean to address @AngryPuffer
You don't have to be this nice. There is nothing wrong with having any rating at chess. However, when you trod on the hard work of other people, minimizing what they have accomplished by saying that you'd have to essentially be mentally handicapped to not be able to reach 2000 in a few months, that is an entirely different issue. Especially when said person is pretending to have attained that level of ability themself with no proof to back it up other than a rating on a different site that has a different rating system and a different pool of players. AngryPuffer isn't only crapping on the hard work of everyone who has ever attempted to improve to 2000, whether they made it or not, they are crapping on their own work that it took to get to their current level. It takes a different level of ego to engage in that kind of mental gymnastics.
what im trying to say is that anyone can reach 2000 pretty easily if they just put some time into it. learn your openings, develop your pieces, understand common tactics and plans in your opening, learn how to make a plan, know tactics, know endgames. that gets you to 1900-2100
I understand what you're saying, and I'm arguing it's incorrect. What I'm asking you isn't what you believe to be true, which I might add you still haven't shown how you know, I'm asking you to respond to my comments about systems, different rating scale, etc. I've achieved 2000 Rapid on chess.com, and have decent ratings in other time controls and on other platforms. In my experience, 2000 is a lot more difficult than learning openings, doing some tactics, and not blundering. There's things that happen when you're learning, eureka moments where you start to understand a pattern positionally, you begin to make sense of what's actually going on strategically and mathematically, and you're calculation ability suddenly seems to become clearer.
These sudden changes didn't occur because you memorized moves, or hoped to survive with the occasional idea by not blundering. Most games aren't won by a pretty tactic you study, and while it's useful to work on them, that won't get you anywhere past seeing free pieces. I could go on, but I'm asking for your response to these and my other comments, not what you believe, as I feel you've said it enough.
when i say ¨learn tactics¨ what i mean is that you should first see all the tactics, then play puzzles and develop intuition and understanding of how they work and when they may appear.
when i say ¨learn plans¨ what i mean is that after you develop all your pieces you should know what to do. Looking at masters games in your opening of choice or similar position of a game you played can help with this alot.
these 2 things as well as other small things that ive already stated is what somebody needs to get to 2000. Does this answer your question? have i explained it enough? and if im wrong why am i wrong? maybe i just dont understand your question well enough.
That's still the learning tactics I'm referring too, that doesn't win you games in combination with opening knowledge as it seemed you claimed was all you needed to get to 2000. I don't recall you mentioning plans, but I will address them anyway. The issue with studying plans in master games from your opening is that they're playing on a different level with better players, with no guarantee your game will follow any sort of plan that was followed then. That's when you need strategical understanding to formulate your own plans, ones that don't require memorization and hoping. I have only ever once got to play a whole game with opening prep, plans and lines included without requiring and calculation or evaluation from me, and it lasted for 15 moves and was a daily game.
maybe go back and read past comments little man
"compare that to chess.com where the london system lingers even past 2000"
This is the only relevant quote where you claim that the London System lingers past 2000 on this site which is false on account of the fact that you've never sniffed 2000 and that you've never even played against a proper London System on this site.
this is not my first chess.com account
And? Out of hundreds of games the fact remains that you have never played against a London System proper on this account, why should that be any different on any other account? Even if you have played against the London on other accounts it is likely to be well under 1% of your games.
The other fact remains that you are not good enough to be 2000 based on your actual play. The first step to improving is to remove your ego. You are not a 2000 strength player on chess.com rapid and never will be by simply pretending that you are. You will actually have to put the work in to get better.
i dont play on chess.com seriously, but i can go over my lichess games.
many of the bullet games continue with Qc2 Bf5 Qc1 Cxd4. while in more rapid/classical games i have not reached that exact position yet
Ah yes, the classic excuse. "I wasn't playing seriously". You can continue to say what you want but a 2000 rated player not playing seriously is still a tier above you playing your best.
i can play and beat you. how about i prove my skill? maybe we should set up a few rapid games