How long does it take you to reach 2000? - Chess Forums - Page 6

AngryPuffer

Dec 5, 2023

0

#101

Cold_W1nter wrote:

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.

¨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,¨

just because white played poorly and did not know what he was doing does not mean i dont know anything about the Sicilian and cant see tactics well. observe blacks play and compare it to whites. i played that game the same way many other people who know how to play the sicilian would have.

but what really holds me back in slower games is finding a way to imbalance the game correctly and win. the only reason why i got up to around 2050-2100 on lichess was because i only played open games or things like the kings indian and dutch, which are naturally sharp

Cold_W1nter

Dec 5, 2023

0

#102

AngryPuffer wrote:

Cold_W1nter wrote:

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.

¨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,¨

just because white played poorly and did not know what he was doing does not mean i dont know anything about the Sicilian and cant see tactics well. observe blacks play and compare it to whites. i played that game the same way many other people who know how to play the sicilian would have.

but what really holds me back in slower games is finding a way to imbalance the game correctly and win. the only reason why i got up to around 2050-2100 on lichess was because i only played open games or things like the kings indian and dutch, which are naturally sharp

I wasn't judging your ability compared with white's, I said you played the Sicilian well, no? I made a mistake in my grammar, I wasn't judging white's and yours playing ability together. I noticed several things you might have worked on, several things that I would have played differently as both sides.

AngryPuffer

Dec 5, 2023

0

#103

Cold_W1nter wrote:

AngryPuffer wrote:

Cold_W1nter wrote:

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.

¨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,¨

just because white played poorly and did not know what he was doing does not mean i dont know anything about the Sicilian and cant see tactics well. observe blacks play and compare it to whites. i played that game the same way many other people who know how to play the sicilian would have.

but what really holds me back in slower games is finding a way to imbalance the game correctly and win. the only reason why i got up to around 2050-2100 on lichess was because i only played open games or things like the kings indian and dutch, which are naturally sharp

I wasn't judging your ability compared with white's, I said you played the Sicilian well, no? I made a mistake in my grammar, I wasn't judging white's and yours playing ability together. I noticed several things you might have worked on, several things that I would have played differently as both sides.

¨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,¨

what this infers is that the game in general had a lack of a good opening, strategy, plans, and importance. which also infers that both of us lacked these because you didnt specify

AngryPuffer

Dec 5, 2023

0

#104

also, could you make a similar list to mine of what you think a person needs to get to 2000?

Cold_W1nter

Dec 5, 2023

0

#105

My Opinions and Statements for all Who are Concerned

1. Achieving 2000 requires only a study of tactics, openings, and some general plans

I believe this to be false for several reasons, first tactics are helpful and train the brain, but most games are not won with pretty tactics you see in puzzles, and so one cannot expect to sit around, survive, and have their opponent blunder such a thing when at the 2000 level. Second, openings are often memorized and not understood, causing a disparity in a player's ability to play good moves, often leading to blunders soon after the opening even if they have a knowledge somewhere between 10-20 moves. Third, general plans often are not executed in live games, especially when playing at a lower level than masters where there is a disparity in understanding.
2. A Lichess Rating of 2000 is equivalent to a rating of 2000 on Chess.comI also believe this to be incorrect for several reasons, first being that Lichess and Chess.com use a different rating system with the latter being less inflated. Often, players with 2000 Lichess are around 1600-1700 on chess.com in the respective time control, and a 2000 Chess.com player is around a 2300-2400 Lichess player. Therefore, it is simply false to assume one's playing ability is directly comparable across sites.
3. Players Who Play Systems such as the London System are illegitimateThis is clearly incorrect, if you examine the games of Magnus Carlsen, Hikaru Nakamura, Gata Kamsky, Simon Williams, Eric Rosen, etc. all play systems often, and they are very legitimate players.

Final ThoughtsI provided this for the clarity of @AngryPuffer, as it seems some of my opinions have been lost of the amount of messages and difference in new comments. I'm arguing that it's naïve to claim 2000 is easily achievable for the average person within a few months, and that there are several misconceptions concerning what a player needs to learn in order to achieve that milestone. I speak with the experience of my personal journey, and do not claim anyone's opinions to be unfounded or ignorant.

Cold_W1nter

Dec 5, 2023

0

#106

AngryPuffer wrote:

Cold_W1nter wrote:

AngryPuffer wrote:

Cold_W1nter wrote:

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.

¨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,¨

just because white played poorly and did not know what he was doing does not mean i dont know anything about the Sicilian and cant see tactics well. observe blacks play and compare it to whites. i played that game the same way many other people who know how to play the sicilian would have.

but what really holds me back in slower games is finding a way to imbalance the game correctly and win. the only reason why i got up to around 2050-2100 on lichess was because i only played open games or things like the kings indian and dutch, which are naturally sharp

I wasn't judging your ability compared with white's, I said you played the Sicilian well, no? I made a mistake in my grammar, I wasn't judging white's and yours playing ability together. I noticed several things you might have worked on, several things that I would have played differently as both sides.

¨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,¨

what this infers is that the game in general had a lack of a good opening, strategy, plans, and importance. which also infers that both of us lacked these because you didnt specify

As I said, I was mostly referring to white in this example, which I didn't clarify and meant to. I do see some things I feel could've been played better by you as well, but as you've pointed out I didn't make that clear.

Cold_W1nter

Dec 5, 2023

0

#107

AngryPuffer wrote:

also, could you make a similar list to mine of what you think a person needs to get to 2000?

I don't believe it can be simplified down to a single list, as players have different talents and strengths so some need less work on an area than others. However, being extremely general, I would boil it down to

1. Opening Lines and a Basic Understanding of Why Each Move is being Played
2. The Study of Tactics, What they do, How they work, and Where they commonly appear
3. The Study of Strategy, including files, squares and/or holes, pieces, pawn structures, etc.
4. The Study of the Endgame, P&K, Opp. B, Sm Clr B, R&P, etc. as well as an understanding of general endgame principles
5. Dedication and Consistency, as well as a mindset of learning from mistakes and losses
6. Review and Analysis both of one's own games and occasionally the study of Master's games, (At a higher level).
These are super general and not all inclusive as that would be impossible to define, but this is what I believe to be an extremely general guideline.

AngryPuffer

Dec 5, 2023

0

#108

Cold_W1nter wrote:

My Opinions and Statements for all Who are Concerned

1. Achieving 2000 requires only a study of tactics, openings, and some general plans

I believe this to be false for several reasons, first tactics are helpful and train the brain, but most games are not won with pretty tactics you see in puzzles, and so one cannot expect to sit around, survive, and have their opponent blunder such a thing when at the 2000 level. Second, openings are often memorized and not understood, causing a disparity in a player's ability to play good moves, often leading to blunders soon after the opening even if they have a knowledge somewhere between 10-20 moves. Third, general plans often are not executed in live games, especially when playing at a lower level than masters where there is a disparity in understanding.
2. A Lichess Rating of 2000 is equivalent to a rating of 2000 on Chess.comI also believe this to be incorrect for several reasons, first being that Lichess and Chess.com use a different rating system with the latter being less inflated. Often, players with 2000 Lichess are around 1600-1700 on chess.com in the respective time control, and a 2000 Chess.com player is around a 2300-2400 Lichess player. Therefore, it is simply false to assume one's playing ability is directly comparable across sites.
3. Players Who Play Systems such as the London System are illegitimateThis is clearly incorrect, if you examine the games of Magnus Carlsen, Hikaru Nakamura, Gata Kamsky, Simon Williams, Eric Rosen, etc. all play systems often, and they are very legitimate players.

Final ThoughtsI provided this for the clarity of @AngryPuffer, as it seems some of my opinions have been lost of the amount of messages and difference in new comments. I'm arguing that it's naïve to claim 2000 is easily achievable for the average person within a few months, and that there are several misconceptions concerning what a player needs to learn in order to achieve that milestone. I speak with the experience of my personal journey, and do not claim anyone's opinions to be unfounded or ignorant.

the thing about number 2 is that the inflation starts to go away as you approach 2200 lichess, a 1500 lichess is a 1000 chess.com but a 2000 lichess is more like a 1700-1800 chess.com while a 2200 lichess is more like a 2100 chess.com. as you get higher it stablizes more and more. for proof look at the elo of master level players on lichess (like NM´s or FMs´) if they are 2400 on lichess i would really doubt that they would be 2000 chess.com.

AngryPuffer

Dec 5, 2023

0

#109

also i dont think i ever claimed london system players are illegitimate, i meant that people who use the london system as a skip to learning any openings are frauds. also the master level players you stated do not use the london system as a main weapon compared to many people on both chess.com and lichess.

Cold_W1nter

Dec 5, 2023

0

#110

AngryPuffer wrote:

Cold_W1nter wrote:

My Opinions and Statements for all Who are Concerned

1. Achieving 2000 requires only a study of tactics, openings, and some general plans

I believe this to be false for several reasons, first tactics are helpful and train the brain, but most games are not won with pretty tactics you see in puzzles, and so one cannot expect to sit around, survive, and have their opponent blunder such a thing when at the 2000 level. Second, openings are often memorized and not understood, causing a disparity in a player's ability to play good moves, often leading to blunders soon after the opening even if they have a knowledge somewhere between 10-20 moves. Third, general plans often are not executed in live games, especially when playing at a lower level than masters where there is a disparity in understanding.
2. A Lichess Rating of 2000 is equivalent to a rating of 2000 on Chess.comI also believe this to be incorrect for several reasons, first being that Lichess and Chess.com use a different rating system with the latter being less inflated. Often, players with 2000 Lichess are around 1600-1700 on chess.com in the respective time control, and a 2000 Chess.com player is around a 2300-2400 Lichess player. Therefore, it is simply false to assume one's playing ability is directly comparable across sites.
3. Players Who Play Systems such as the London System are illegitimateThis is clearly incorrect, if you examine the games of Magnus Carlsen, Hikaru Nakamura, Gata Kamsky, Simon Williams, Eric Rosen, etc. all play systems often, and they are very legitimate players.

Final ThoughtsI provided this for the clarity of @AngryPuffer, as it seems some of my opinions have been lost of the amount of messages and difference in new comments. I'm arguing that it's naïve to claim 2000 is easily achievable for the average person within a few months, and that there are several misconceptions concerning what a player needs to learn in order to achieve that milestone. I speak with the experience of my personal journey, and do not claim anyone's opinions to be unfounded or ignorant.

the thing about number 2 is that the inflation starts to go away as you approach 2200 lichess, a 1500 lichess is a 1000 chess.com but a 2000 lichess is more like a 1700-1800 chess.com while a 2200 lichess is more like a 2100 chess.com. as you get higher it stablizes more and more. for proof look at the elo of master level players on lichess (like NM´s or FMs´) if they are 2400 on lichess i would really doubt that they would be 2000 chess.com.

Yes but that's the 2400+ level, not the 2050 level, where this is still a disparity.

Cold_W1nter

Dec 5, 2023

0

#111

AngryPuffer wrote:

also i dont think i ever claimed london system players are illegitimate, i meant that people who use the london system as a skip to learning any openings are frauds. also the master level players you stated do not use the london system as a main weapon compared to many people on both chess.com and lichess.

Illegitimate and Fraud are like terms, no? I never stated they play the London as a main system, I stated they often play systems in general, and I would argue Eric and Levy both play the London as their main weapon, with Carlsen and Nakamura using the Modern defense, KIA, etc. regularly enough.

AngryPuffer

Dec 5, 2023

0

#112

Cold_W1nter wrote:

AngryPuffer wrote:

also i dont think i ever claimed london system players are illegitimate, i meant that people who use the london system as a skip to learning any openings are frauds. also the master level players you stated do not use the london system as a main weapon compared to many people on both chess.com and lichess.

Illegitimate and Fraud are like terms, no? I never stated they play the London as a main system, I stated they often play systems in general, and I would argue Eric and Levy both play the London as their main weapon, with Carlsen and Nakamura using the Modern defense, KIA, etc. regularly enough.

levys main weapon is the trompowsky attack, classical QGD, 2.a3 sicilian, and vienna gambit, while eric does use the london as one of his main weapons.

both magnus and hikaru use the ruy lopez, QGD nimzo indian, queens indian, and other meta openings as their weapons.

TS_theWoodiest

Dec 5, 2023

0

#113

AngryPuffer wrote:

also, could you make a similar list to mine of what you think a person needs to get to 2000?

There is no cure all to get to 2000. There is no real way to say exactly what you need to get to 2000 either. You need tactics, some opening understanding, some positional understanding etc. but those are things you need in general to improve at any stage. There are just levels. You see GM games brimming with complex tactics that just don't happen at the amateur level and that's because the understanding of said concepts is such that the positioning of the pieces will be of a higher quality. Tactics flow from a superior position, but that doesn't make it one sided, both positions can be of a superior quality which is what leads to complexities that are typically only seen at the highest levels.

AngryPuffer

Dec 5, 2023

0

#114

Cold_W1nter wrote:

AngryPuffer wrote:

Cold_W1nter wrote:

My Opinions and Statements for all Who are Concerned

1. Achieving 2000 requires only a study of tactics, openings, and some general plans

I believe this to be false for several reasons, first tactics are helpful and train the brain, but most games are not won with pretty tactics you see in puzzles, and so one cannot expect to sit around, survive, and have their opponent blunder such a thing when at the 2000 level. Second, openings are often memorized and not understood, causing a disparity in a player's ability to play good moves, often leading to blunders soon after the opening even if they have a knowledge somewhere between 10-20 moves. Third, general plans often are not executed in live games, especially when playing at a lower level than masters where there is a disparity in understanding.
2. A Lichess Rating of 2000 is equivalent to a rating of 2000 on Chess.comI also believe this to be incorrect for several reasons, first being that Lichess and Chess.com use a different rating system with the latter being less inflated. Often, players with 2000 Lichess are around 1600-1700 on chess.com in the respective time control, and a 2000 Chess.com player is around a 2300-2400 Lichess player. Therefore, it is simply false to assume one's playing ability is directly comparable across sites.
3. Players Who Play Systems such as the London System are illegitimateThis is clearly incorrect, if you examine the games of Magnus Carlsen, Hikaru Nakamura, Gata Kamsky, Simon Williams, Eric Rosen, etc. all play systems often, and they are very legitimate players.

Final ThoughtsI provided this for the clarity of @AngryPuffer, as it seems some of my opinions have been lost of the amount of messages and difference in new comments. I'm arguing that it's naïve to claim 2000 is easily achievable for the average person within a few months, and that there are several misconceptions concerning what a player needs to learn in order to achieve that milestone. I speak with the experience of my personal journey, and do not claim anyone's opinions to be unfounded or ignorant.

the thing about number 2 is that the inflation starts to go away as you approach 2200 lichess, a 1500 lichess is a 1000 chess.com but a 2000 lichess is more like a 1700-1800 chess.com while a 2200 lichess is more like a 2100 chess.com. as you get higher it stablizes more and more. for proof look at the elo of master level players on lichess (like NM´s or FMs´) if they are 2400 on lichess i would really doubt that they would be 2000 chess.com.

Yes but that's the 2400+ level, not the 2050 level, where this is still a disparity.

ill make a graph

as you see the inflation starts as a massive gap, but over time it stablizes and becomes similar to chess.com´s elo. i got this information from games that ive played in my entire chess career

bobjob101

Dec 5, 2023

0

#115

Lets find out good luck

Cold_W1nter

Dec 5, 2023

0

#116

AngryPuffer wrote:

Cold_W1nter wrote:

AngryPuffer wrote:

also i dont think i ever claimed london system players are illegitimate, i meant that people who use the london system as a skip to learning any openings are frauds. also the master level players you stated do not use the london system as a main weapon compared to many people on both chess.com and lichess.

Illegitimate and Fraud are like terms, no? I never stated they play the London as a main system, I stated they often play systems in general, and I would argue Eric and Levy both play the London as their main weapon, with Carlsen and Nakamura using the Modern defense, KIA, etc. regularly enough.

levys main weapon is the trompowsky attack, classical QGD, 2.a3 sicilian, and vienna gambit, while eric does use the london as one of his main weapons.

both magnus and hikaru use the ruy lopez, QGD nimzo indian, queens indian, and other meta openings as their weapons.

He uses the London as well, don't you think the Trompowsky and a3 Sicilian are systems as well? I don't have the energy to go in circles, I'm said my piece, I just wish you would provide an account name or something that proves you've been 2000 before so I can confidently believe you actually have any experience in that rating range

AutisticCath

Dec 5, 2023

0

#117

took me 8 years.

AngryPuffer

Dec 5, 2023

0

#118

TomekPrzemek16 wrote:

AngryPuffer napisał:

TomekPrzemek16 wrote:

AngryPuffer napisał:

it takes 1-3 months if you are interested in improving

you would have to be handicaped mentally if you couldnt get to 2000 within a few months. literally all you have to do is learn tactic patterns, look for all your attacking moves, your checks, free pieces, skewers, and hanging pieces. that alone gets you to 1900

I'm here longer than 3 months and I 'm just 800 so there are the following options:

1. I'm mentally handicapped as angry puffer put it

2. Angry puffer cheats and talks bull

3. Angry puffer has a talent and talks bull.

4. Angry puffer is delusional and mentally handicapped (many great chess players were)

One thing is sure to me: no matter how good you are at something you still have to be a good teacher to have any idea about learning and teaching it.

For example to teach English and talk about learning it, it's not enough to just speak it fluently.

could you explain to me how i cheat?

AngryPuffer

Dec 5, 2023

0

#119

Cold_W1nter wrote:

AngryPuffer wrote:

Cold_W1nter wrote:

AngryPuffer wrote:

also i dont think i ever claimed london system players are illegitimate, i meant that people who use the london system as a skip to learning any openings are frauds. also the master level players you stated do not use the london system as a main weapon compared to many people on both chess.com and lichess.

Illegitimate and Fraud are like terms, no? I never stated they play the London as a main system, I stated they often play systems in general, and I would argue Eric and Levy both play the London as their main weapon, with Carlsen and Nakamura using the Modern defense, KIA, etc. regularly enough.

levys main weapon is the trompowsky attack, classical QGD, 2.a3 sicilian, and vienna gambit, while eric does use the london as one of his main weapons.

both magnus and hikaru use the ruy lopez, QGD nimzo indian, queens indian, and other meta openings as their weapons.

He uses the London as well, don't you think the Trompowsky and a3 Sicilian are systems as well? I don't have the energy to go in circles, I'm said my piece, I just wish you would provide an account name or something that proves you've been 2000 before so I can confidently believe you actually have any experience in that rating range

im talking about their main go to weapons. not what they play on occasion

WorstPlayerEver

Dec 5, 2023

0

#120

WILLIAM1109 wrote:

nah, bullet is almost useless