Kasporov_Jr írta:
Pashakviolino wrote
"oh your mentally handicapped if it took you 4 years to reach 1500. I was already a 1400 when I was 7 years old. And I am great player, I won US scholar championships at 10 years old. That is the biggest achievement you can do. You better go and improve you're 1200 standard chess rating. I am better at chess than your"
please stop taking what I said to you & using it towards other people.
you came into my thread disrespecting me, so I took a shot towards you, and just you. 4 years to reach 1500 is pretty respectable, my comment was to a guy who spend 20 years reaching 900 rating.
Mate, you were blown away that people can't break 1300 in a few months, and now you're saying 4 years for 1500 is respectable? Wot.
I have not read all the comments above and I'm not sure anyone is interested in my opinion, but at least you, the author will get to read this.
The words I say come from a very experienced and still active chess coach from soviets time. As a chess player and freetime coach I can agree with that. To quote "Anyone can get a rating of 2000 in chess, if he wants to".
To eplain- there is a higher border you have not enough talent to break. For some it is 2600 (many hard trying GM's), for some just a title, for some less. But a border you can reach without any additional talent, if you just 'wish' to is about 2000 (it says), what es defenetly above 1300.
What does now this 'wish' means?
This wish does not mean you have to spent all your time doing chess or anything like that. It does mean, if you are a human, who is able to learn from your mistakes; try to improve yourself and are motivated in chess, then it is already enough to get a rating about 2000 (adults would need time though, but there will be still a slow improvment noticeable). You can see that by all the youth players climbing near the level before putting chess aside because of college etc. All these just stayed in chess and had mostly no coaches etc. who 'pushed' them up.
Unfortunatly, I even have some students myself, who are sitting below 1500 for a very long time. You may say that that would break my theory already but all these students have something in common- they don't care about chess. The biggest part is dragged by his parents and don't even like chess, so they even don't want to be stronger.
Now you can ask me- 'If it is so easy- why do I still don't have my 2000 rating?!' I can give you an answer. If you are a healthy and sane human (doesn't matter which character, culture or anything else) then 2000 is a realistic aim for you. The biggest problem should be, that your basics are not in great shape, since without learning properly at the beggining (e.g. through a school, book, coach) you either don't have any or you have a wrong understanding of it.
The solution lies already in it, you have to reconsider all that you have learned (not easy, but possible) and just fill your holes. Did you analysed your last game, searched for your faults the last game? If not, then they won't go away and you stay on the same level (means you don't WANT to get your promised rating of 2000). If yes, then you should improve at least a bit and go to your aim.
Because all you need to play like 2000 is just a healthy understanding of the centre, king safety, weak and strong fields, and some calculation abilities, that guarentee you calculate just the variations you need. Some get that by their own, some can get 1 or 2 classical books to learn that (even free if yoiu search for it). And the last thing- if you don't even know any names of good old books/authors (e.g. nimzowitsch/my system), do you still want to tell me you really questioned yourself how you can get better? (instead of just zombie-blitzing)
If you read all that you should also notice that in this article there is no word at all of mastering opening lines or learing computer variations, which is the biggest time-consume in chess.
Have a potato :)