Chess - Play & Learn


FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store


Improve your play, you can reach 2000.

  • #1

    Almost everybody here thinks it's impossible for him to reach 2400 fide rating, maybe 2000, or even 1600 sometimes, without to be a genius. They all speak about talent, luck or other magic stuff, and think they will never improve. Then I decided to share my opinion on this important subject. 

    My idea is : everybody could reach 2000. I did and I'm not a special guy. I'm not talking about 2400 because some people are gonna tell me I'm not 2400, which is true, but I think it's the same for 2400, almost everybody can reach 2400 if he wants to.

    How did I reach 2000 ? Very simple, I played OTB long games with strong opponents. I also played blitz and rapid, red some few chess books/reviews but not carefully at all, I just red what I wanted to read, not to improve but because I like the game, and never take it as a work. But that's not the point. The 3 mains things people always forget, are




    By 'long game' I mean 4h games (2h for each), or even slowly. By 'strong opponents' I mean opponents who are 300 or 500 points higher than ourselves.

    After you reach 1800 or 2000, you can (and must) begin to really work ('work' is what we normally don't do and don't like, what we need to do and what we do when we want to improve after 2000/2200/2400 level, because this is the level where the wish of being strong become more important than the wish of never 'work') with books or coaches.

    Of course you have to love the game, analyse your losses and ask many many advices to stronger players. And I'm not saying books are useless when you're under 2000, every GM had read some chess paper even when he was 1500, like everybody does. But before 1800 or even 2200 you really don't need to 'work', you just need to play OTB, LONG GAMES, and STRONG OPPONENTS.

  • #2

    thankya man this may be useful...

  • #3

    ...and lots of tactics.

  • #4

    If everyone was 2000+, who would we make fun of?

  • #5
    DrSpudnik wrote:

    If everyone was 2000+, who would we make fun of?

    People who are more (or less) nerdy than ourselves.

  • #6

    Thanks for your ideas. About how long did it take you to go from 1500 to over 1900? 

  • #7
    zealandzen a écrit :

    Thanks for your ideas. About how long did it take you to go from 1500 to over 1900? 

    From the start to over 1900 : 50 long OTB games (the great majority of them against strong opponents).

  • #8
    DrSpudnik wrote:

    If everyone was 2000+, who would we make fun of?

    I think you mean, "whom would us make fun have".

  • #9

    Ending sentences with prepositions is something up with which I will not put!

  • #10

    We only need 50 slow games to get 1900 elo? If it's easy like that maybe all of us will be masters in no time. The problem is  how to play against strong opponents I mean how to get them ( few of them want to play with lower players)

  • #11

    FWIW, I took about 300 tournament games - obviously not all of them against opposition rated 300+ points higher - over sixteen years of very intermittent play (do the math) to get to 1900 (I started playing tournament as a 1200 player, give or take). I also read books, analyzed, talked and played informal games with stronger players...

    Who cares? I had fun - and finally made it to the coveted 1900 level...

  • #12
    who of the strong guys here would like to play a 1hour+ game with me ? ^_^
  • #13

    I think this is a little too simplistic. I know a lot of players that go to tournaments and play OTB games but have yet to reach 2000. They have also played more games than you. Most players who attend tournaments never reach 2000, just like most people on chess.com fail to reach 2000. There are more variables. 

    Sorry. I don't agree that playing OTB with strong players will automatically make you a 2000. It will greatly help, but there is more to it. 

    I do agree that at 1800... the real hard work begins. This is where I am currently. Putting in the hard work into parts of my game which I typically have ignored because I don't find it enjoyable: i.e. endgames.

  • #14

    May I recommend to you an excellent book by IM Silman on the endgames - you will find that it is extremely easy reading, full of humor and wit. 

    He presents to you everything you need to know at your level - and ONLY what you really need to know. 

    Very instructive and recommended!!!

  • #15

    thank you solskytz. I actually have Silman's book, but found it slow. I really enjoy Jonathan Hawkins, "Amateur to IM" a lot better. 

    But what I enjoy the most when it comes to endgames is Peshka's endgame studies. The computer is faster and find it easier to move through the material faster. 

    Thank you for the recommendation though. 

  • #16

    You're welcome. 

    I'm surprised that you find IM Silman's book slow. I went through all of the sections up to expert very quickly - as that material wasn't very difficult for me. Now I'm going slowly through the expert section - as it is way more difficult and probably matches my current needs. I find it very useful and very well written - but of course, to each his own and best of luck!

  • #17

    I think it's because I find studying endgames to be boring. some of the material was too simplistic and other's I asked myself... "when will I really use this."


    I struggle with theoretical knowledge like the Lucena position, because I have maybe had to use it say twice out of hundreds if not thousands of games. It seems to me that in terms of investment in time, studying pawn and rook endings gives the most bang for the buck so to speak. And studying those endings via studies or puzzles might be the quickest method for significant improvement, rather than a book.


    Those are just some of my theories on studying and investment of time.


    As you mentioned, to each his own happy.png


Online Now