Step: 1 lower your max rate challenge to 500
Step:2 play hundreds and hundreds of games
Step:3 Raise aspirations to 2500
RoadMap for achieving 2000 Elo rating in 1 year
Sort:
Aug 7, 2012
0
#183
ShindouHikaru wrote:
Step 1: Get to 1600.
Step 2: Play a 24 game match against a player who is sitting at a 2000 floor, but is really only about 16-1700 in strength.
Step 3: Repeat monthly. Should be good enough for 18-1900 at least.
One of my friends that I know outside of chess.com is rated 2100+ here, but I am a better player than he is. Not that he is a bad player, he is great at openings, but his middlegame and engame were not very good. I really don't know how he got his high rating.
nate23 wrote:
ShindouHikaru wrote:
Step 1: Get to 1600.
Step 2: Play a 24 game match against a player who is sitting at a 2000 floor, but is really only about 16-1700 in strength.
Step 3: Repeat monthly. Should be good enough for 18-1900 at least.
One of my friends that I know outside of chess.com is rated 2100+ here, but I am a better player than he is. Not that he is a bad player, he is great at openings, but his middlegame and engame were not very good. I really don't know how he got his high rating.
I see people state here, quite often, that end game and middle game knowledge is more important than opening knowledge. I would say this only applies for players below a certain rating. Many folks seem to suggest the 1800-2000 range as a cut off.
Beyond that, think of a game of chess as a building that is being built. If the foundation is faulty, does it really matter how skilled one is at installing the best amenities in the upper floors, if the foundation won't support it's developmental fruition?
The recommendation to learn tactics and end games will make you a much better player than average, if done well. It takes good opening knowledge, along with middle and end game pattern recognition, to use the right strategies and find the tactics to win at the highest levels of chess. This probably explains how you out perform your friend in certain aspects of chess, but yet he manages a higher rating. Also I would say your playing habits contribute.
Wow! lol
zborg: You're right, @E4nf3. I misread your post, inter alia. Mea culpa. Will endeavor to improve in my future posts.
I would accept your nice (and appropriate apology) but I can't because you followed it with another attack on me.
You just have to find fault in other people, don't you? He's just saying that a foundation (this would be the basic skills of chess, such as tactics and endgames) is something you want if you want to be good at chess. You don't need any more similarities to get the point.
joeydvivre wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
Beyond that, think of a game of chess as a building that is being built. If the foundation is faulty, does it really matter how skilled one is at installing the best amenities in the upper floors, if the foundation won't support it's developmental fruition?
Why do people write stuff like that? The analogy is horribly flawed so the conclusion from the analogy is horribly flawed. The first problem is that the foundation in building a house is fixed and there is almost nothing fixed about early moves in a chess game. Second, the foundation of a house supports the rest of the building in a very physical way. The early moves of a chess game do not support the remaining moves althouugh they may give some indication of future plans. And a billion other differences.
Why would anybody want to think that way? Make up a dumb analogy and hope to get some wisdom from it? Then you think it's so cool you share it? Huh?
Ok since it doesn't matter, lets play a game and you have to blunder 5 times in your first 5 moves and well see if the result is any different from our second game in which you try your best.
Put your biases aside Joseph...
Never did study ''tactics'' & still don't. Played lot's of chess until I felt had basic understanding for the game.
Then I looked at great past/master games & openings etc.
Understanding the principles of chess & looking at the board (twice at least, better numerous times) is reliable path to follow...
Follow Elubas's advice you will be totally snookered OTB witout study/aids or references to help you. Would need to rely entirely on memory which few except GM's who study the game extensively & exhaustively can.
joeydvivre wrote:
Elubas wrote:
You just have to find fault in other people, don't you? He's just saying that a foundation (this would be the basic skills of chess, such as tactics and endgames) is something you want if you want to be good at chess. You don't need any more similarities to get the point.
No..I think that the conversation should not include idiocy. Telling beginning players that they should think of a chess game as building a house is the dumbest thing I can imagine. It's simply nothing like the same and the way you go about the process is completely, utterly different.
Then we go even farther and say that the analogy leads you to the conclusion that studying openings is more important than studying other stuff and we have somehow justified all the idiotic opening study that beginners do.
Reread the post Joe...I said " beyond a certain rating"...it can make all of the difference...
What is your own OTB or USCF rating Elubas ?
[edit] Okay I see you have this listed as 1932 USCF. Does that qualify you to speak authoritatively to beginners on here? You are neither chess-master or coach & would have to attain at least NM status before doing so. These forums on chess.com are just conversations..
joeydvivre wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
joeydvivre wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
Beyond that, think of a game of chess as a building that is being built. If the foundation is faulty, does it really matter how skilled one is at installing the best amenities in the upper floors, if the foundation won't support it's developmental fruition?
Why do people write stuff like that? The analogy is horribly flawed so the conclusion from the analogy is horribly flawed. The first problem is that the foundation in building a house is fixed and there is almost nothing fixed about early moves in a chess game. Second, the foundation of a house supports the rest of the building in a very physical way. The early moves of a chess game do not support the remaining moves althouugh they may give some indication of future plans. And a billion other differences.
Why would anybody want to think that way? Make up a dumb analogy and hope to get some wisdom from it? Then you think it's so cool you share it? Huh?
Ok since it doesn't matter, lets play a game and you have to blunder 5 times in your first 5 moves and well see if the result is any different from our second game in which you try your best.
Put your biases aside Joseph...
Unfortunately, I am more than biased against idiocy and it will never go away.
So now you think that my comments suggested that you can blunder 5 times during an opening? If you have trouble thinking clearly, just don't offer your opinion.
Certainly it is an exaggerated statement on my part in frustration... Of course the 1st move in chess is considered viable...
Here I'll rephrase it...how bout someone playing the 5 worst moves they could possibly play....
Does it make a difference...or do your degrees and my lack of them alter the truth at your beckoning?
joeydvivre wrote:
Elubas wrote:
You just have to find fault in other people, don't you? He's just saying that a foundation (this would be the basic skills of chess, such as tactics and endgames) is something you want if you want to be good at chess. You don't need any more similarities to get the point.
No..I think that the conversation should not include idiocy. Telling beginning players that they should think of a chess game as building a house is the dumbest thing I can imagine. It's simply nothing like the same and the way you go about the process is completely, utterly different.
Then we go even farther and say that the analogy leads you to the conclusion that studying openings is more important than studying other stuff and we have somehow justified all the idiotic opening study that beginners do.
Honestly, I'd much rather see idiocy than a need to find fault. If your intentions were truly good, you wouldn't construct your post the way you did.
netzach wrote:
What is your own OTB or USCF rating Elubas ?
[edit] Okay I see you have this listed as 1932 USCF. Does that qualify to speak authoritatively to beginners on here. You are neither chess-master or coach & would have to attain at least NM status before doing so. These forums on chess.com are just conversations..
I'm not even sure what post you're referring to... I was mainly posting because there was an unnecessary insult that I didn't like. Anyway, I'm not sure where your argument that "you have to be x rating" is based on. If you're not higher than 1932 USCF then I think it's hypocritical of you to make your own judgment, that "my advice" (again, I'm not sure exactly what post of mine you mean) is bad, if you apparently need a certain rating to make any assertion about chess.
Beginners should simply examine & look at the position on the board. Think about the moves & principles of chess & do their best. That's it. Full-stop end of story.
Elubas wrote:
joeydvivre wrote:
Elubas wrote:
You just have to find fault in other people, don't you? He's just saying that a foundation (this would be the basic skills of chess, such as tactics and endgames) is something you want if you want to be good at chess. You don't need any more similarities to get the point.
No..I think that the conversation should not include idiocy. Telling beginning players that they should think of a chess game as building a house is the dumbest thing I can imagine. It's simply nothing like the same and the way you go about the process is completely, utterly different.
Then we go even farther and say that the analogy leads you to the conclusion that studying openings is more important than studying other stuff and we have somehow justified all the idiotic opening study that beginners do.
Honestly, I'd much rather see idiocy than a need to find fault. If your intentions were truly good, you wouldn't construct your post the way you did.
Joey doesn't like me. He thinks his chess rating, college degrees and jobs automatically make anything I state, that he doesn't agree with, second rate or wrong. You will most likely be better off talking to a wall.
netzach wrote:
Beginners should simply examine & look at the position on the board. Think about the moves & principles of chess & do their best. That's it. Full-stop end of story.
But if you're not a chess coach or master, then you are just contradicting yourself.
Elubas wrote:
netzach wrote:
What is your own OTB or USCF rating Elubas ?
[edit] Okay I see you have this listed as 1932 USCF. Does that qualify to speak authoritatively to beginners on here. You are neither chess-master or coach & would have to attain at least NM status before doing so. These forums on chess.com are just conversations..
I'm not even sure what post you're referring to... I was mainly posting because there was an unnecessary insult that I didn't like. Anyway, I'm not sure where your argument that "you have to be x rating" is based on. If you're not higher than 1932 USCF then I think it's hypocritical of you to make your own judgment, that "my advice" (again, I'm not sure exactly what post of mine you mean) is bad, if you apparently need a certain rating to make any assertion about chess.
What I mean specifically is why profer bad or innacurate advice to people ?
What's right for you may not be for them or beginners in general ??
zborg: No surprises there
I think I had something thoughtful to say. Then you attacked me by ambush.
No ice cream for you.
You're right, @E4nf3. I misread your post, inter alia. Mea culpa. Will endeavor to improve in my future posts.
Still, having read your nasty posts in other threads, I'll keep up my guard.
Only fitting, since you blocked me, and many others.