Ok, yeah that makes more sense. But again, it’s not just about who flags faster. Just wanted to say that
rating 950-1020 but unable to go above after a year and a half
Sort:
That's more than fair. I certainly didn't reach the online blitz 1500 mark by focusing solely on speed, and I know for SURE you didn't pass the 2000 mark by focusing solely on speed. It's an amazing skill.
That actually feeds into my advice to OP.
See Snudoo's profile? He's actually only played 1801 blitz games, but he's worked on 5123 puzzles and has a puzzle score of 2618. He's vowed not to play a 3 minute game until his blitz score passes 2100, and he's almost there. He relies on Blitz and Rapid to *test* his skills, not to *build* them.
Guys thanks so much and stay safe
Ben
I noticed you've played thousands of games but only done 144 puzzles. If you just play over and over but don't study or do lessons or anything to improve, you won't.
I did the same, then I finally started studying and I've done 5000+ puzzles at this point and over the last year and a half my blitz rating has climbed from the 1200's to 1675 currently.
More puzzles, more lessons, more articles, less actual playing.
Aug 7, 2020
0
#27
truthyboolean wrote:
That actually feeds into my advice to OP.
See Snudoo's profile? He's actually only played 1801 blitz games, but he's worked on 5123 puzzles and has a puzzle score of 2618. He's vowed not to play a 3 minute game until his blitz score passes 2100, and he's almost there. He relies on Blitz and Rapid to *test* his skills, not to *build* them.
I vowed not to play 3 mins because every time I do I drop a hundred points so that's that
I do 30min timings is that Blitz?
RowanGoldstrom wrote:
Any good advice?
I checked a few games of yours and as far as I can tell you have a decent grasp on the basic concepts of chess. You develop pieces, try to get castled and generally play in the center of the board. That's a good start.
However, what I noticed is that you have difficulties recognizing your opponents threats and realizing when there are loose pieces in your position. In other words, you need to improve your sense of danger and constantly scan your position for loose pieces and weaknesses that your opponent may attack. John Bartholomew has a great video series on YouTube on chess fundamentals that you should really check.
Another issue I noticed is your tactical awareness. You tend to miss some fairly simple tactics both for you and your opponent. When you enter a tactical variation you need to calculate whether variations are forced or not. You often seem to counter-attack when your pieces are threatened and don't seem to pay attention to possible options your opponent has. They don't always have to directly follow the variation by trading pieces, but can sometimes just sidestep your counter-attack, leaving not just one but sometimes two of your pieces hanging - resulting in a loss of material.
That being said, if you really want to improve as a chess player you need to improve your tactical awareness, calculation and your sense of danger. Try to play solid (focus on keeping your pieces co-ordinated, and pay extra care when anything is undefended) and constantly scan your opponents position for loose pieces that you could take advantage of. I think that in your case a serious effort on tactics via tactics trainer or some tactics related work (like 1001 Chess Exercises for Beginners book on Chessable) would pay dividends on your chess improvement.
There is very little point in trying to improve your strategy or openings if you give up pieces en prise or fail to take free material when presented to you via simple 1-2 move tactics.
wallfacerluoji wrote:
Ignore the people telling you to learn tricks and traps. You will not improve in any meaningful way if you just learn a bunch of tricks. Practice trying to make the best move in any position, even when you're losing.
I agree, forget about tricks and traps and instead study tactics. Look at every position as if it's a chess puzzle and try to figure out the best move. Before you make a move, look and see if the piece you're about to move can be captured, and if so, if you can recapture a piece of equal or greater value. Learn to work your pieces together so that they can protect each other. And always protect your king.
Nexim you are so kind to give this feedbackl-take care Sir
Thanks Pat
keep going
Carlsens!!
truthyboolean wrote:
Is this your chess profile? https://www.chess.com/member/rowangoldstrom
Because obviously you're going to plateau if you're relying on rapid and blitz to improve. These games tell you how rapid you are at executing what you've already learned, they don't teach you anything.
Rapid in particular, in which you've played over 4,000 games, hardly resembles a normal-paced chess game at all, its tipping-point skill is the ability to not run out of time, not the ability to understand the game. The analysis engine changes this *some* if you use it. But even that isn't anything like allocating 2 hours to play a live game, or playing a daily game.
I think you're confusing rapid and bullet. He has played a lot of rapid games with 30 minutes time control for each side. That's perfectly fine time control for learning purposes. I do agree that playing bullet chess (2 min time control or less per side) is not good for learning the game.
I think blitz is more about testing your current ability than learning, and it can be an indicator of your playing strength but shouldn't be used as the main time control for learning the game.
Lol. That argument doesn't work, since rapid and blitz both test your skill.
The ability to spot right moves without wasting time considering bad moves, that's a skill. Quick calculation, intuition, and psychological play all factor into blitz/rapid.
I'm going to assume you're talking to me. But "rapid and blitz both test your skill" is in no way contradictory to my claim that their "tipping-spoint skill is the ability to not run out of time."
Think about the term "tipping-point skill." Obviously a game between someone rated 1600 and someone rated 800 doesn't rely on a "tipping point," assuming the player rated 1600 in slower settings has the internet connection and presence of mind to even play a 1-minute game. But no structured tournament or chess server matches people with these differences. Players are matched to each other when they have comparable ratings, and the winner is decided by "tipping point" skills.
And in a 1-minute game between players with ratings below 1200 or 1400 or maybe even 1600, the difference between moving every second versus every two seconds matters more than whether you can identify a windmill or a clearance sacrifice.