RoadMap for achieving 2000 Elo rating in 1 year

In principle I agree with what he is saying, but some people don't want other people to be different. I posted what I said originally to a guy referring to someone in the 2100 range. My idealogy certainly is applicable. Joey doesn't like the fact it could be misconstrued....

But anything can be misconstrued Joey...no matter how good your intentions our how well placed your context......

and you have the nerve to talk about idiocy....get a life dude...I feel sorry for your students...and anyone else you try passing knowledge to...

My analogy was part of my idealogy...you suck at trying to use someones words against them....I could have been a damn good lawyer Joey....your guilty....for botching this argument too

So, what's your point. That was tongue-in-cheek.

You know, you snakebelly devotees are birds of a feather. You, zborg, Joey, Stevie (BTW, Stevie...I do accept and appreciate your apology...thanks)...

Learn to be men...independent thinkers...instead of devotees of a sick guy who uploads a photo of a hanged house pet. And, BIG TIME, slanders some very nice people.

Your feeble attempts at gangbanging me is both pitiful and laughable.

Fie upon all such as ye!

Elubas what use is endgame-strategy to a beginner unless they firstly concentrate on the aspects of chess that actually allow them to make it to the endgame ?

So you're persistently rude & obnoxious to everyone then try to brush this off & excuse it as ''tongue-in-cheek'' ?

Don't care what age you are but you could make an effort to speak without recourse to bad language & insults.

Oh, please...I'm not going to fall into your clap trap.

Now, where was I...

I think the comments above about new or low level players needinjg to be more board  observant, is probably the single, simplist and enriching criteria.

I just played my brother. Spotted him a rook. Then it was like taking candy from a baby. He virtually gave me his low-hanging fruit...hanging pieces that he should have seen that I could take on the very next move.

And, no...I am not bragging here...lest the vultures jump on my tough old bones, as is there wont. No. I've been there myself. Everyone who reaches any degree of competency can remember how hard is was just to have board vision of the obvious.

Where I'm at now? I still do stuff that I could smack myself on the forehead (remember that Kasparov moment?)...just gave away my Q when I was winning a few days ago. Thing is, the better we get...the less often this happens.

I agree netz, but why then do they tell beginners to study endings more than beginings?

What, you know he is single and think it is funny?...What a putz....I bet you wouldn't give him a fair fight anyway...

My wife is dying of cancer, you slime bag.

But who gives this advice ?

I will gladly argue until the sun sets on other topics with you but never intentially give you bad-advice on chess.

If you are paying attention to local-advice then obviously this is not helping. Look further afield to the centres of chess-excellence in the world for training.

(ie: ignore ''Kevin'' on youtube but do look at the other content)

Well, there are a lot of decisions that can only be understood by knowing what a position can turn into. You can calculate a series of moves that lead to a certain position, but in order to know if it's something you want to do, you have to know if that position is good for you. If you understand underlying endgame positions, you know what positions to strive for, and which to avoid. Moreover, the limited amount of pieces on the board forces you to be more precise with the movements.

Think about it. When there is an open c file in a middlegame, your bishops, or queens, or knights almost always "easily" cover the c2 square, thereby preventing penetration. But with less pieces on the board, that square is so much harder to protect. If you only have one rook and one knight left on the board, you won't even be able to play your rook to c1 if the opponent controls the file. You have to be much more resourceful when finding a way to defend that square.

So it simply forces you to use your pieces plain better. I think this is a good place to start. Surely you can at least see that there is some merit to my points?

Ok Joey, just for you...another analogy from the "depths" of my idealogy as it applies contextually to the truth of studying chess, as well as, the post that I replied to prompting you to try to berate me once again, from your pomp... I know you'll hate it...but it doesn't change the truth...

Learning how to play a good game of chess is like putting together the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle in order to bring the revelation of the finished product into view. You can start with any piece of the puzzle theoretically and find any other piece that fits together with it and continue this process, putting together all of the required pieces, until the full picture is revealed.

Hence, it technically doesn't matter where you start in terms of learning how to play chess, in order to be good at it. However, you can perhaps enjoy the game more and win more and or lose less, by carefully evaluating needs to make the process easier or taking advantage of natural features that make recognition and learning easier. It is similar to using the technique of finding all of the edge pieces for the puzzle. After the border is together, then finding the pieces and assembling them for the prominent features in the bigger picture are examples of using natural features of both the puzzle and the learner to make the process easier and more efficient.

Hope you liked it Joe...

Some points yes !

But whenever I try to broach this with you lot I get accused of being ''Anti-American'' !

But surely after 40yrs of trying is time to examine the possibility that chess has more facets to it than these & that particular ''roadmap'' is not bringing in the results ?

You all need to think differently about chess...

That's the best I can do for making my case. Honestly, it's pretty hard to know what I'm talking about until you experience it yourself.

It's kind of funny, actually. The best I can say I have done with my chess, is that I have actually learned to follow advice I've heard since I was a beginner. I, too, heard that endings are a great way to learn chess, didn't believe it because I couldn't understand their perspective, and so I "did my own thing." Now that I actually understand the reason for the advice, because of my experience, I finally follow it, even though I knew it since I was rated 1000.

But if you really want me to be as wrong as possible, netzach, that's all I can do. I'm sorry I had good intentions and wanted to help. Nothing wrong with being skeptical, of course. Beginners, and any player, can study how they want, and hopefully they will find something that works for them. In my case, I went back to the old advice only after having bad experiences when going against it.

I agree with you -- there's not necessarily one incontrovertible method. As long as you're not biased against me, I have no problem with what you just said. But I think you are biased against me, because of how often you have insulted me in the past and seem to do anything you can to discredit or disagree with me. I can't win an argument against someone biased against me.

It is interesting that you bring up the idea of varying ideas on learning. Some people don't want more competition. Others think the way they learned has to be the right way, because it worked and the want the best method to have been not only understandable for them, but very effective, or perhaps otherwise they look lesser.

We all learn differently. In truth, there is a general "best" way to learn and teach chess, but it varies with each person. What I mean by that is , would you rather have enjoyed playing and winning more often until you got really good, or learned a whole bunch of hard lessons trying to start from just one opening and playing defense from scratch, not studying any other aspect of chess? You could still technically learn it the 2nd way I mentioned, but it would seem cruel to me to put someone through that.

Okay & accepted. But in terms of chess am only trying to help also.

You're all way too dogamatic about systems that aren't working.

No, you're trying to discredit people like me, and you're even discrediting yourself, by saying that anyone under 2200 USCF can't offer advice.

I completely agree...imagine if an old man who never joined a chess sanctioning body, who was maybe a GM level player, who was new here with a Chess.com rating of 1450, was shunned for giving sound advice...