500 is bad. Blunder check before you move.
I always blunder check before my moves and still make blunders.
So tygxc your advice is bull, I'm afraid.
Blunder check but how do I blunder check ? What moves am I supposed to find ?!?!?!?!?!? Help lol that's kinda how 500s work sometimes (ps:2200s get tunnel vision to sometimes tho it gets better )
The chart above is bull, too.
1000-1200 = basic tactical knowledge???
people here with that rating show at least intermediate tactical knowledge.
My rapid is 950 and puzzle 2100.
Bro my puzzle rating is only 2800-3000 and tactically I'm relatively ok at my level focusing on tactics in-game is MUCh harder than out of game so learning how to win down a piece or a rook can be really really helpful
The chart above is bull, too.
1000-1200 = basic tactical knowledge???
people here with that rating show at least intermediate tactical knowledge.
My rapid is 950 and puzzle 2100.
Chess is more about how you think (tactics are important ) tho you get tactics out of certain positions and positional play you need to know how to get tricky positions
First, you play blitz - I play rapid; that's incomparable.
Rapid is chess, blitz is a computer game requiring no real skills.
But the fact that you are not a titled player and above 2000 blitz makes me think you use an engine.
Lol imidiate with the accusation bro you just said tgcx didn't help at all and he plays rapid I know how to make people blunder wether you like it or not
Rapid advice doesn't help but neither does mine ? I know how to get better quickly (or at least eventually lol)
First, you play blitz - I play rapid; that's incomparable.
Rapid is chess, blitz is a computer game requiring no real skills.
But the fact that you are not a titled player and above 2000 blitz makes me think you use an engine.
Plenty of people are 2200+ and not titled why do I have to compete lol
The chart above is bull, too.
1000-1200 = basic tactical knowledge???
people here with that rating show at least intermediate tactical knowledge.
My rapid is 950 and puzzle 2100.
It’s actually quite mixed. The vast majority of players under 1200 lack basic tactical knowledge, but that partly depends on what is meant by “basic”. A few can play a decent game of chess. I recently did a deep dive into my stats and was shocked to learn that I’ve lost 53 games to players under 1200 (approximately 9% of those I’ve played against opponents at that level). In 1/3 of those games, my play was horrid. In another 1/3, my opponent was using nefarious assistance. That still leaves 15-20 players who played a quite decent game of chess.
Like all such charts, this one averages a lot of data. It will not apply in all cases. I’m sure you’re a very astute and knowledgable 950 player. No doubt you’ll be 1700 before long.
blablabla
Trollololololol
Here’s the most accurate guide to ratings that I’ve seen.
1800-2000 you should add "just figured out what positional play is"
Here’s the most accurate guide to ratings that I’ve seen.
not accurate
Here’s the most accurate guide to ratings that I’ve seen.
1800-2000 you should add "just figured out what positional play is"
I didn’t make the chart. Someone shared it on Chess Teachers and Learners, a Facebook group. I doubt he made it either. I was impressed that it did not try to give everyone a trophy as do some such charts (and half the forums on this site). I particularly liked the advanced beginner category.
The only times I’ve had ratings below 1400 was my first few months on ICC in the late-1990s and my provisional rating OTB with the USCF, and then briefly after losing all five games in a weekend Swiss, including losing to a 950. But, I spent a lot of years in the 1400s. I certainly didn’t think of myself,as an advanced beginner when I was there, but looking back, that’s a pretty good description of my level of play.
Here’s the most accurate guide to ratings that I’ve seen.
1800-2000 you should add "just figured out what positional play is"
I didn’t make the chart. Someone shared it on Chess Teachers and Learners, a Facebook group. I doubt he made it either. I was impressed that it did not try to give everyone a trophy as do some such charts (and half the forums on this site). I particularly liked the advanced beginner category.
The only times I’ve had ratings below 1400 was my first few months on ICC in the late-1990s and my provisional rating OTB with the USCF, and then briefly after losing all five games in a weekend Swiss, including losing to a 950. But, I spent a lot of years in the 1400s. I certainly didn’t think of myself,as an advanced beginner when I was there, but looking back, that’s a pretty good description of my level of play.
Probably but in that range (or 1600-1800 blitz ish ) alot are intermediates tbh but it depends positional play is probably the hardest thing to learn
Here’s the most accurate guide to ratings that I’ve seen.
1800-2000 you should add "just figured out what positional play is"
I didn’t make the chart. Someone shared it on Chess Teachers and Learners, a Facebook group. I doubt he made it either. I was impressed that it did not try to give everyone a trophy as do some such charts (and half the forums on this site). I particularly liked the advanced beginner category.
The only times I’ve had ratings below 1400 was my first few months on ICC in the late-1990s and my provisional rating OTB with the USCF, and then briefly after losing all five games in a weekend Swiss, including losing to a 950. But, I spent a lot of years in the 1400s. I certainly didn’t think of myself,as an advanced beginner when I was there, but looking back, that’s a pretty good description of my level of play.
Probably but in that range (or 1600-1800 blitz ish ) alot are intermediates tbh but it depends positional play is probably the hardest thing to learn
My blitz play was much better when I was a 40-something child. Now I’m lousy at blitz. That I’m in the USCF top 100 in online blitz for men over 50 only shows that we’re all bad at the fast stuff as we get older. Or, maybe, most old guys don’t play rated games online.
Here’s the most accurate guide to ratings that I’ve seen.
1800-2000 you should add "just figured out what positional play is"
I didn’t make the chart. Someone shared it on Chess Teachers and Learners, a Facebook group. I doubt he made it either. I was impressed that it did not try to give everyone a trophy as do some such charts (and half the forums on this site). I particularly liked the advanced beginner category.
The only times I’ve had ratings below 1400 was my first few months on ICC in the late-1990s and my provisional rating OTB with the USCF, and then briefly after losing all five games in a weekend Swiss, including losing to a 950. But, I spent a lot of years in the 1400s. I certainly didn’t think of myself,as an advanced beginner when I was there, but looking back, that’s a pretty good description of my level of play.
Probably but in that range (or 1600-1800 blitz ish ) alot are intermediates tbh but it depends positional play is probably the hardest thing to learn
My blitz play was much better when I was a 40-something child. Now I’m lousy at blitz. That I’m in the USCF top 100 in online blitz for men over 50 only shows that we’re all bad at the fast stuff as we get older. Or, maybe, most old guys don’t play rated games online.
I guess so but it's helpful to practice what your bad at I bet it's partly slowing down tho there should be a way to compensate for it isn't kramnink pretty good and is kinda old ?
Here’s the most accurate guide to ratings that I’ve seen.
1800-2000 you should add "just figured out what positional play is"
I didn’t make the chart. Someone shared it on Chess Teachers and Learners, a Facebook group. I doubt he made it either. I was impressed that it did not try to give everyone a trophy as do some such charts (and half the forums on this site). I particularly liked the advanced beginner category.
The only times I’ve had ratings below 1400 was my first few months on ICC in the late-1990s and my provisional rating OTB with the USCF, and then briefly after losing all five games in a weekend Swiss, including losing to a 950. But, I spent a lot of years in the 1400s. I certainly didn’t think of myself,as an advanced beginner when I was there, but looking back, that’s a pretty good description of my level of play.
Probably but in that range (or 1600-1800 blitz ish ) alot are intermediates tbh but it depends positional play is probably the hardest thing to learn
My blitz play was much better when I was a 40-something child. Now I’m lousy at blitz. That I’m in the USCF top 100 in online blitz for men over 50 only shows that we’re all bad at the fast stuff as we get older. Or, maybe, most old guys don’t play rated games online.
Usually if our around let's say 15-30 intermediate blitz is around like 1600-1800 I have no idea about older people tho
So 500 elo is not good is it? LMAO
No but 500 is "beat most of your friends and family level "
Here’s the most accurate guide to ratings that I’ve seen.
1800-2000 you should add "just figured out what positional play is"
I didn’t make the chart. Someone shared it on Chess Teachers and Learners, a Facebook group. I doubt he made it either. I was impressed that it did not try to give everyone a trophy as do some such charts (and half the forums on this site). I particularly liked the advanced beginner category.
The only times I’ve had ratings below 1400 was my first few months on ICC in the late-1990s and my provisional rating OTB with the USCF, and then briefly after losing all five games in a weekend Swiss, including losing to a 950. But, I spent a lot of years in the 1400s. I certainly didn’t think of myself,as an advanced beginner when I was there, but looking back, that’s a pretty good description of my level of play.
Probably but in that range (or 1600-1800 blitz ish ) alot are intermediates tbh but it depends positional play is probably the hardest thing to learn
My blitz play was much better when I was a 40-something child. Now I’m lousy at blitz. That I’m in the USCF top 100 in online blitz for men over 50 only shows that we’re all bad at the fast stuff as we get older. Or, maybe, most old guys don’t play rated games online.
I guess so but it's helpful to practice what your bad at I bet it's partly slowing down tho there should be a way to compensate for it isn't kramnink pretty good and is kinda old ?
Everyone slows down. Even Kasparov, who could probably destroy all but about 50 players in the world, now gets abused by the top ten. He’s four years younger than me. Kramnik is still quite young. Not even 50.
It's impossible to get an appreciation of how good you are here based on your elo since this site is so bad at catching cheaters.
Players tend to be more highly rated if they are skilled at the game despite increasing numbers fair play violations. The reality is that cheating is very rare at both yours and OP's elo level, so your rating is fairly indicative of your real playing strength.
It's not that common for blitz it's about the same at most levels but In rapid around 2100 ish it starts to get painful if your unlucky tbh people are worse at cheating then you think even if there's cheaters there's other people at 2100 ect that don't so it shouldn't be an excuse